On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On May 16, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm rather -0 ATM and very close to -1 because:
1) I haven't heard from a windows dev for a long time, I don't think that happens that often
And it's surely not going to improve...
2) It's a *huge* change and it should definitely not be done lightly. We would need to plan a period like 2 full days, all devs would need to stop working on what they do and help out. For example all pages on xwiki.org having some github links are going to be broken and will need to be updated (that's probably around hunded of pages overall)
Yes it's a huge change, that's why it's a vote.
3) Windows devs have a simple solution which is to use cygwin so it's not a blocker
It's not as trivial as you seems to think and it also mean that you simply can't use the standard git tools in the Windows world like the Github application or Tortoisegit without speaking or any EDI git integration... so not it really can't be seen as some obvious solution. And it's not like using Cygwin was some king of standard for Windows dev. "use cyggwin" is easy to say but the reality is that a dev will try to clone XWiki repository with the git tool he is used to and will simply can't, period.
What I'm saying is that I don't think it's worth the effort. By worth I mean the ratio between the effort and problems it'll require from us vs the # of windows dev not using cygwin that'll want to develop for the xwiki project…
Do you really know what cygwin is ? It's not some small magical codec that makes everything works with any path size. Using cygwin is almost as painful as using a VM and you can hardly think of something less integrated to Windows, it's not something any Windows dev use unless he is forced to. Talking about "the # of windows dev not using cygwin" simply does not make any sense. No Windows dev don't use it except in very specific use cases and it certainly don't include Java devs...
We're going to loose at least a month before we've finished that migration completely and I'm really worried about the toll it'll have on our releases...
Thanks -Vincent
PS: With the same group effort we could release a first version of the new model for example ;)
Thanks -Vincent
On May 16, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
Reviving http://markmail.org/message/hlnqke3igkbec332 for as an official vote.
We have waited way too long and I think we really need to find a solution even if none of the committers use Windows since a long time. Every time a Windows dev even think of contributing he is very quickly discouraged...
As a reminder the issue is that working on XWiki source code is a pain for MS Windows developers because of the (impossible to understand I agree) limitation on path size.
So the idea is to find a new logical rule to drastically shorten our paths and Sergiu proposed the following: remove duplicated information from our paths to maven modules.
Here is an example:
xwiki-platform-core/xwiki-platform-rendering/xwiki-platform-rendering-transformations/xwiki-platform-rendering-transformation-macro (131 chars)
would become
core/rendering/transformations/macro (36 chars)
So WDYT ?
Here is my +1
I also find it nicer when navigating using cd and tab in a unix shell anyway.
Planning to do it in 5.1 if everyone agree.
-- Thomas Mortagne
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne