On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't have a strong opinion but it should be one of the following IMO: > > 1) we don't care about the date in XML (which is the current situation > in practice since we never ruled on this and we don't apply the same > rule) > 2) XAR format forces a specific date in the XML (but hard to find one > that make sense) > 3) XAR format remove the date element from the XML (which means that > the date will be the install/import date) > 4) the date in the XML is the date of the last commit (but hard to > make sure it's always true, maybe some git tag like the id tag we are > using in Java files ?) > 5) the date in the XML is the release date (means adding this in the > release script but it's a pity for extensions) > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, devs, >> >> This interesting discussion [1] came up recently on a github commit that >> lead us to realise that a practice which we have been doing since forever >> is not documented in our best practices guides and that we also seem to >> lack consensus on it. >> >> It`s about the practice of skipping date field changes from document XML >> pages when committing them to source control. This includes doc date >> and contentUpdateDate >> fields, but also attachment dates. >> >> You can see some arguments on the discussion[1], but I also wanted to >> mention that this practice goes in line with what we do for document >> versions (which is handled by the xar:format maven plugin goal which we >> execute every time, before committing XML pages). > >> If we are to update doc >> dates, then we should also increment doc versions, otherwise it does not >> make any sense. > > No, there is no relationship between the version and the date in this context. > >> >> The idea was, AFAIR, that XWIki`s code pages should not generate any >> updates in the user`s wiki content, in any way, and that and update of the >> code of a "system"/XWiki page should not show up as an update of *the >> user's content*, since it would otherwise confuse him.
Imports and installs are not taken into account by activity stream which seems well enough to not have system pages end up in changes reports. >> >> What we are currently missing from xar:format is exactly this: the reset of >> XML page dates to have a clearer and more consistent date for XWiki`s code >> pages. > > But which date ? > >> >> Your input is appreciated and the result of this discussion would be the >> update of our Development Practices [2] and Application Development Best >> Practices [3] pages. >> >> Thanks, >> Eduard >> >> ---------- >> [1] >> https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/commit/1938dd18e1d25b8c03e4cb22286273bffdea5530#commitcomment-18375907 >> [2] http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices >> [3] >> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ApplicationDevelopmentBestPractices >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > -- > Thomas Mortagne -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
