Hi, On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think I’d be in favor of: > * Have our xar:format remove the dates > * Have xar:verify fail if the dates are in the XML (thus our quality build > will fail if that’s the case) > * Have the import set the current date if no dates are defined (that’s > probably the case already, would need to be checked) > A side-effect of this is that, when you upgrade and extension, all the pages of the extension will be changed and set to the update date as their last modification dates, right? (i.e. it affects both fresh installs and upgrades) Thinking more about it, it could be problematic for all the pages of an extension that you upgrade to appear as being modified, even if nothing changed in them in that particular version. Another minor negative side-effect would also be searching or listing documents and sorting them by the last update time. Of course, this would mostly affect admins or users with "show hidden documents" enabled. However, if you happen to also manage some content pages in your build (that are not supposed to be hidden), this becomes a nuissance. WDYT about the 2 problems? I guess we could always accept them and say that installs/upgrades are relatively rare and that the impact is minimal (and similar to an empty save in a document - something that can already be observed in practice in a document's history - so we don`t introduce anything new). Thanks, Eduard P.S.: Here`s an existing issue more or less related to this topic http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-7058. Caty reminded me about it. > * Have AS and Watchlist exclude import / new wiki (already the case) > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > On 25 Jul 2016, at 14:08, 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
