27 Apr
2018
27 Apr
'18
12:10 p.m.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
both
It’ll work, even if we update existing color themes. It’s just that users
won’t get the changes by default as soon as they start customizing a theme.
Thinking about this, how would they reset to the latest version? If they
delete the page (hoping it will be re-added on the upgrade), I'm not sure
if they will get it or if EM will consider that if it is deleted, then the
user wants to keep it deleted.
Hi Edy,
this
Of course, but I'm not sure how is that related to what I said.
Configuration is and still will be editable and traceable in history. My
concern is only about *code*, specifically code that is written, maintained
and periodically released by someone other than the person currently
editing it, thus introducing a high potential for conflicts. I share your
grief for software not keeping a history of changes done in the configs.
On 26 Apr 2018, at 14:13, Eduard Moraru
<enygma2002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
>
>> 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.
You missed something from those snips where I explained the way I saw 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.
will
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 be some changes to the way XWiki works.
For me XWiki has a huge advantage over any other software we know: it’s
the ability to track changes to configuration and code. Not a lot of
software do this. For ex, imagine I change a setting in JIRA or in Jenkins.
There’s no way you’ll know about it, nor be able to see the diff of what
was changed, nor be able to roll it back. That’s an enormous advantage and
we shouldn’t remove it.
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 > 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.
If we want, it would be not too hard to add a button in the Color Theme
sheet to revert to the factory default (I think it was proposed by
Guillaume too), to make it more user-friendly than having to go to the
history view to do that.
Indeed, a reset to defaults that would actually reset to the latest
extension version of that document (suggested by Caty offline) would be
indeed a nice feature for configuration docs. This should also cover the
above case of restoring an edited and deleted page.
Thanks,
Eduard
Thanks
-Vincent
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:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
>>> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>>>>>> 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
> a
>>>> 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