26 Apr
2018
26 Apr
'18
2:13 p.m.
Hi, Vincent,
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi Edy,
Thanks for your input, see below.
You missed something from those snips where I explained the way I saw this
and what might cause some confusion:
"IMO, the important part to distinguish the fact that the configuration
part (for a regular, non-dev) is choosing *which* color theme to use, while
the customization (i.e. coding, done by someone that understands CSS/LESS,
in this case) part is editing/customizing your own version of a color
theme."
i.e. Themes are not configuration, but actual code.
On 26 Apr 2018, at 11:42, Eduard Moraru
<enygma2002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I'm sorry, but nothing related to configuration inside pages looks very
"wiki-like" to me.
[snip]
You should not need a developer
(possibly the original developer of the project/customizations) in order
to
make a really basic operation such as an upgrade.
Maybe I'm saying
"sometimes less is more"? :)
I’m just reacting to this part, hence the snipping :)
For me approach 1 is both the complex approach by far and completely
unwiki-like. The wiki way is to be able to make easy edits and be able to
rollback, see diffs, etc. That’s natural and fast. That’s why wikis are
great and this is what we do everywhere in XWiki, including configurations
since all configs are stored inside wiki pages (XWikiPreferences, *Config,
etc). And we’re not going to change that now.
It would be the first time we copy something before
allowing changing it
and that’s not logical and not consistent.
The whole discussion is about not allowing to edit something, which is a
first indeed, but we are moving in that direction, so of course there will
be some changes to the way XWiki works.
In addition we would make a bigger mess since not only users would be
directed to making copies of color themes pages but they would still be
able to make modifications to current color theme pages…
The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that
approach 2 is both
the simplest (and I agree that “less is more” :)) and the most logical.
You mentioned upgrade being a problem but I don’t think this is correct
since approach 2 means that the color theme pages are “demo” pages meaning
that there will never be any upgrade conflict. When we do new XWiki cycle
versions, we will still be able to provide new color themes and since those
are new (like Iceberg this year) users will be able to switch to them
easily (there’s no upgrade issue either here).
Going again through the page types (specifically the "demo" one) and
through the options, I agree that, at least of the Color Themes case,
approach 2 should do the job. Of course, all of this being possible with
the contract that we don't update color themes and we always publish new
ones, of which I'm a bit skeptical.
So +0.5 for approach 2.
Thanks,
Eduard
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Eduard
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
a
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Thomas Mortagne
<
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> To give my opinion, I’m hesitating about 2 approaches:
>>>>>
>>>>> Approach 1: “standard"
>>>>> ==================
>>>>>
>>>>> * We should have “Default Color Theme” be a copy from the Iceberg
>> color
>>>> theme page. I think I’d prefer the copy to be done at runtime; for
>> example
>>>> if the currently defined color theme page doesn’t exist when going to
>> the
>>>> L&F > Themes admin page, create it by copying Iceberg. This
provides So it seems that 2) is currently leading with
Ecaterina and Vincent.
Guillaume I'm not sure if you prefer 2) or 3) (i.e. what do you think
about delete ?).
Marius, does your proposal means you are more for
1) but with the
difference that the default color theme would be allowed for edit ?
Yes, but I'm ok with 2)
>
> Any other point of view input ?
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
> <valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net
>> self
>>>> healing feature if the color theme page has been removed/doesn’t
>> exist/etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> * Predefined color theme pages should be considered “standard” and a
>>>> warning message displayed if a user wants to edit them. BTW would be
>> nice
>>>> to have a feature to have a customized message per “type”. For
example
>> for
>>>> color theme pages we would display a message saying that the user
> should
>>>> copy the page to customize it instead of editing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> * The Color Theme UI should also be improved a bit to have a
>> “Customize”
>>>> button on color theme pages that would perform a copy to let the user
>>>> customize a theme.
>>>>>
>>>>> Approach 2: “demo"
>>>>> ================
>>>>>
>>>>> * Consider all color themes to be demo content and once the user
>> starts
>>>> modifying them don’t merge them anymore
>>>>> * When we want to provide modified color themes, introduce new theme
>>>> pages
>>>>> * Don’t provide a “Default Color Theme” page. Directly set “Iceberg”
>> to
>>>> be the default CT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Analysis
>>>>> =======
>>>>>
>>>>> Approach 2 is more wiki style and simpler for sure. Users can use
> the
>>>> diff feature and the rollback feature if they want to go back to the
>>>> original versions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I’m leaning more towards 2 ATM.
>>>>
>>>> So you think delete is OK too, right ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For me delete is ok too. IMO we should provide just a few themes by
>>> default, and the user should be able to uninstall and install what
> themes
>>> he wants (ideally he would be able to preview them live).
>>>
>>> I don't like the copying part very much. Users like to have a base to
>> start
>>> from, but they also have history as a fallback.
>>>
>>> Also we rarely make changes to ColorThemes, especially since they are
> not
>>> very complex since they should contain only variables. Still it all
>> depends
>>> on how well the Default Theme is tested initially.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Caty
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25 Apr 2018, at 11:35, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net>
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this a VOTE or a proposal or a brainstorming? I’m asking
since
>>>> nobody has voted yet, not even Thomas (except if we consider that
>> “prefer”
>>>> means +1 and “OK” means +0 ;)).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the answer it seems we might need a new VOTE since several
new
>>>> points have been added to the discussion. I’m not able to VOTE right
>> now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23 Apr 2018, at 12:29, Thomas Mortagne <
>> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi xwikiers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Following new XAR entry type mail here is a question about
color
>>>>>>> themes we provide in standard XWiki (Cerulean, Charcoal,
etc.).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Standard stuff, if you want a custom color theme create a
new
> one
>>>>>>> (would be nice to be able to copy a standard one and propose
it
> when
>>>>>>> you try to edit a standard one).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) Demo content, edit and delete it all you want and upgrade
won't
>>>>>>> touch a customized theme to avoid surprises (background
color
>> changed
>>>>>>> a bit in the standard version which now collide with your
logo)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) Same as 2 but delete is bad (same as home page)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WDYT ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm think I prefer 1) but I'm OK with 3) if other
think it's more
>>>>>>> example than standard material. Let's say -0 for 2).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Mortagne
>>
>