On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 23 May 2017, at 18:37, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > My only point to this discussion is that, as Thomas (I believe) already > > mentioned, since 7.2 spaces are deprecated. We can consider that the time > > in between (7.2-9.5) was more than enough for anyone still using spaces > to > > migrate to Nested Pages (and the NP-based alternatives), this includes us > > doing the "deprecation" approach and keeping those pages. > > I agree that it’s been a long time. I actually put this information in the > jira issue: > https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13101 > > " > Specifically: > * Panels.SpaceDocs was deprecated in XWiki 7.3M2 (XWIKI-12599) > * Panels.Spaces was deprecated in XWiki 7.4.2/8.0M2 (XWIKI-12829) > * Main.Spaces and Main.SpaceIndex are also deprecated by the move to > nested pages and the removal of the Space notion from the UI > “ > > Note that we never deprecated officially Main.Spaces and Main.SpaceIndex. > > > Now that the time > > has past, I believe it is safe to remove those pages and move forward. > > > > Otherwise, if we plan to support them even further, IMO, we`ll end up in > a > > ridiculous situation, supporting code that has no value and that nobody > > should be using anymore. > > Note that this is what we’re doing for APIs so I assume you consider pages > to not be as important as APIs (or at least those pages). > I think you`ve missed by point completely :) I consider those pages deprecated by default (because their behavior is no longer doing what it was originally supposed to do) starting with 7.2. Our deprecation strategy says to leave them on about 2 major releases. We are now working towards 9.5. I consider that enough time in order to both respect our deprecation strategy and be able to move forward (i.e. dropping/removing/killing them with fire :) ). Yes, we *are* doing the same thing with API, so I don`t see why we should add yet *another* deprecation layer (i.e. 2 major releases starting from now), hence the "ridiculous situation" I`ve mentioned). Yes, it was never "deprecated officially", but so what if they stopped doing what they were supposed to do? Note: I don`t have anything against moving them to some dark basement (i.e. contrib repo) either, just that I would not invest more in the process more than writing one phrase in the readme file. AFAIK, we did not do this in the past (i.e. retiring code without properly documenting it), however, previously retired projects had a lifecycle of their own and basic value, so that`s why I`m in favor of just discarding this now unused/not working code. Anyway, that`s my view of the subject. Thanks, Eduard > > So I`m +1 for removing them. > > Remove them altogether or do the hard work of creating a special extension > for them and releasing that extension? > > Personally if we do the "remove from platform” (which seems to be the > direction so far) then I’d drop them altogether because I don’t think > anyone would notice that those pages still exist somewhere and we don’t > have any automatic way of conveying that information to the user (except > release notes but we know this isn’t foolproof and we could link to the > last version of those pages in the SCM or the last version of the XARs > containing them if someone really needs to get them back. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > > > Thanks, > > Eduard > > > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > >>> On 23 May 2017, at 17:03, Marius Dumitru Florea < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 23 May 2017, at 16:01, Marius Dumitru Florea < > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 23 May 2017, at 15:22, Marius Dumitru Florea < > >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Mortagne < > >>>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I would be more in favor of moving them to some extension than can > >> be > >>>>>>>> easily installed if really needed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> +1 for moving to an extension that is not bundled by default. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Could you elaborate a bit? You’re ok to break existing users? What’s > >>>> your > >>>>>> rationale? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> AFAIK the Extension Manager doesn't delete pages without asking you > >> first > >>>>> so you can choose to keep these pages (when asked). And if you don't > >> pay > >>>>> attention when upgrading then you can restore them from the recycle > bin > >>>> or > >>>>> install the dedicated extension. > >>>> > >>>> Ok so you’re saying that users who upgrade will understand this and > >>>> they’ll know what those technical pages do and thus they won’t let EM > >>>> delete them or they’ll understand that they need to install some > >> dedicated > >>>> extension? > >>>> > >>> > >>> If they used these pages explicitly (e.g. adding the panel, including > or > >>> linking etc.) then they probably know what those pages do, so they can > >>> decide whether to keep them or not. > >>> > >>> If they used these pages indirectly, because these pages were exposed > in > >>> the standard UI then: > >>> * if they didn't modify the standard pages then the UI will be updated > >>> * if they modified the standard pages then they get a merge conflict, > >> where > >>> they can compare the previous version with the next version to see how > >> the > >>> "deprecated" pages have been replaced. > >> > >> I don’t think this is always true. For example imagine a user who > created > >> spaces with the Space Dashboard template. This created some home page in > >> the space and those dashboard were using Main.Spaces (AFAIR). > >> > >> This is an example of a non-default page but the user doesn’t master its > >> content. > >> > >> Thanks > >> -Vincent > >> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Marius > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I was leaning to the safer legacy approach. The only downside I can > >> think > >>>> of about it is that you may keep some pages in your wiki that are > >>>> deprecated/not needed. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> -Vincent > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Marius > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>> -Vincent > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> Marius > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Vincent Massol < > [email protected] > >>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Hi devs, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We have this jira issue I created a while ago and I’d like to > move > >>>>>>>> forward: > >>>>>>>>> https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13101 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I have one question: > >>>>>>>>> Should we move the 4 pages into a legacy module in platform and > >>>> bundle > >>>>>>>> it in XE or just remove them? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> My POV: > >>>>>>>>> We could consider the pages as APIs I guess and use the API > >> strategy > >>>> of > >>>>>>>> moving deprecated APIs to legacy. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> WDYT? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>> -Vincent > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne > >> > >> > >
