+0 for "Standard" (the definition is accurate but it definitively miss some sex-appeal) -1 for "Default" which is the opposite of sex-appeal.
Vanilla might be a problem for users, but at least it was a cool name :) 2017-06-12 13:18 GMT+02:00 Vincent Massol <[email protected]>: > > > On 12 Jun 2017, at 12:42, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "XWiki Vanilla", because it`s the *standard flavor* :D Sounds so funny > that > > I kind of like it :) > > > > However, I`m not so sure about non-techinical users or how that goes with > > other stuff that we already or might produce, since we don`t really have > a > > pattern on that. Fun proposal, though. > > My POV: > > * The wikipedia page on “Vanilla” shows that the name is perfect from a > technical POV. It really represents what we want. > * I think most of our users are non-tech and wouldn’t understand it since > I don’t think the “Vanilla” terminology is that common outside of tech > circles > > So I agree that it’s a fun proposal but we’ll get users asking us > frequently why we chose an ice-cream flavor for an XWiki flavor ;) > > Thus I’m also hesitating but I think I’m more -0 since “XWiki Vanilla" > sounds more like a code name than a real name. I think that I still prefer > “Standard” or “Default” ATM (with a small preference for “Standard” which > has a bit more meaning than “Default” for me). Now if everyone else prefers > “Vanilla”, I wouldn’t oppose it, as I also find it fun and to the point. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > Thanks, > > Eduard > > > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Marta Girdea <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm jumping in a bit late, but I was just wondering if anyone considered > >> "Vanilla" [1]. It was the absolute first thing that popped to my mind > when > >> I saw the discussion about naming the standard flavour. > >> > >> Just my 2 cents, > >> Marta > >> > >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanilla_software > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Denis and all, > >>> > >>>> On 10 Jun 2017, at 11:46, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi All, > >>>> Sorry to jump in after an already long discussion since we are getting > >>> close to a conclusion, so I just don’t want my intervention to cause > more > >>> fuzz than good. > >>>> I am in accordance with most of what was said so far, but “Default” > >>> looks to me a less valuable naming than “Standard”, it is not a strong > >>> opinion, so I give my +1 to “Standard” and +0 to “Default”. I will use > >>> “Standard" in the following, just to be clearer, but you can substitute > >> it > >>> with “Default” if you wish (you might notice further subtle > differences, > >> or > >>> not). > >>>> So, what I am not sure about now is why all proposals end with “XWiki > >>> flavor” (and this is not really about the American spelling of flavour > ! > >>> :D). All flavours we gonna have surely will be XWiki ones, won’t it ? > So > >> if > >>> we start with the “Standard XWiki Flavor”, I am afraid we are going to > >> lead > >>> a movement where everyone will name their flavour with that same > suffix. > >> Is > >>> that our intention ? > >>>> “XWiki Standard Flavor” would already carry a different meaning, since > >>> it would say more “Standard flavour made by the XWiki team”. However, > if > >>> our intent was more to say this is a generic wiki flavour, using > >> “Standard > >>> Wiki Flavor” looks more in line with our intended meaning. And if our > >>> meaning is more that this is just a generic flavour, ending with > >> “Standard > >>> Flavor” is probably simpler, clearer and better. > >>>> WDYT ? > >>> > >>> I agree with you. > >>> > >>> I think we have 2 choices for the name that appears in the DW UI: > >>> * “Standard”. We may not even need the “Flavor” suffix in the same way > as > >>> we don’t add an “Extension” suffix in the EM UI. IMO the DW UI for > >> flavors > >>> should indicate the author in the UI, something like ”Standard” and > then > >>> “developed by XWiki Development Team” or “developed by XWiki SAS” or > >>> “developed by Denis Gervalle”. > >>> * "XWiki Standard” or “XWiki Standard Flavor” to indicate it’s the one > >>> made by the XWiki open source dev team. So that could be the full name > >> but > >>> the name we display in the DW UI could simply be “Standard Flavor” and > >> then > >>> “developed by XWiki Development Team”, etc. > >>> > >>> If we want to use the term “Wiki” then it could come as a replacement > for > >>> the “Standard” term, to mention that it’s a generic wiki flavor, as > >> opposed > >>> to an intranet flavor, a knowledge base flavor, etc. But I agree that > >> “Wiki > >>> Flavor” is a good contender (and one that Ludovic mentioned too, he > even > >>> mentioned Structured Wiki Flavor). I’d be +0 on “Wiki Flavor”. > “Standard > >>> Wiki Flavor” is also possible and hints that there can be other generic > >>> Wiki flavors that are not standard. So I’m also +0 for it. > >>> > >>> Now outside of the DW UI, the full name of the flavors done by the > XWiki > >>> Dev Team could be prefixed with XWiki as in “the XWiki Standard Flavor” > >> (or > >>> “XWiki Demo Flavor”). Other companies or individuals would name is with > >>> their identity, such as “the <my company> Procedure Flavor”. > >>> > >>> WDYT? > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> -Vincent > >>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Denis Gervalle > >>>> SOFTEC sa - CEO > >>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 16:48, Thomas Mortagne < > >> [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> So here is the current situation > >>>> > >>>> = Proposition which don't annoy people enough to get a veto > >>>> > >>>> * "Default XWiki Flavor" (+3) > >>>> * "Standard XWiki Flavor" (+2) > >>>> > >>>> = Someone gave a veto on those > >>>> > >>>> * "Base XWiki Flavor" > >>>> * "Classic XWiki Flavor" (good success for this one until it hits Edy > >>>> and Vincent) > >>>> * "Raw XWiki Flavor" > >>>> * "Starter XWiki Flavor" > >>>> * "XWiki Flavor” > >>>> * "Generic XWiki Flavor" > >>>> > >>>> Anyone want to change his votes ? > >>>> > >>>> I don't really have a preference between "Default" and "Standard". > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> So I’ve read this thread and here’s my POV: > >>>>> > >>>>> * "Base XWiki Flavor” -1 (same reason as Thomas) > >>>>> * “Classic XWiki Flavor” -1 (same reason as Edy, it means there’s a > >> non > >>> classic and *better* one and we don’t have one so it doesn’t make > sense) > >>>>> * “Raw XWiki Flavor” -1 (not enough meaning IMO and a bit > deprecatory) > >>>>> * “Starter XWiki Flavor” -1 (would mean there’s another flavor which > >>> isn’t the case) > >>>>> * "Default XWiki Flavor” +1 > >>>>> * "Generic XWiki Flavor” +1 > >>>>> * “Standard XWiki Flavor” +1 (makes the most sense IMO) > >>>>> * "XWiki Flavor”. Here it’s hard to understand that “XWiki” actually > >>> means “developed by the XWiki project” and it would work only if other > >>> flavors don’t have “XWiki” in the name. This is why I’m -1 ATM for it. > >> IMO > >>> it’s not easy enough to differentiate and understand what it means > >> compared > >>> to other listed flavors such “Procedure Flavor” from XWiki SAS or “Demo > >>> Flavor” from contrib. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> -Vincent > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 24 May 2017, at 11:51, Thomas Mortagne < > [email protected] > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi devs, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm getting closer to finish with the hard work around new platform > >>>>>> flavor which is going to replace XE. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Need to decide what user will see in the Flavor picker when > installed > >>> XWiki now. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As a reminder we decided that this would be a generic flavor, not > >> tied > >>>>>> to any specific use case (so forget about "Knwonledge Base Flavor" > >>>>>> :)). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here is a few ideas gathered in previous mails: > >>>>>> * "XWiki Flavor" > >>>>>> * "Default XWiki Flavor" > >>>>>> * "Generic XWiki Flavor" > >>>>>> * "Base XWiki Flavor" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "Generic" is probably a way too technical term. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "Base" would be misleading IMO since it's not really a base flavor. > >>>>>> Its primary goal is not to be used as a dependency (of course it's > >>>>>> fine to have it as dependency if you just want to add pre installed > >>>>>> extensions to the default flavor). It's a -1 for me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Frankly I would simply go for "XWiki Flavor". I know, it's not going > >>>>>> to be the only flavor for XWiki but it's obvious when you actually > >> see > >>>>>> severals of those in the picker anyway and I find it nicer than > >>>>>> "Default XWiki Flavor" which basically means the same thing since > the > >>>>>> XWiki core project does not plan to provide any other flavor. I'm > >> also > >>>>>> fine with "Default XWiki Favor" if others think it's a better name. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> WDYT ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Thomas Mortagne > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Thomas Mortagne > >>> > >>> > >> > > -- Guillaume Delhumeau ([email protected]) Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS Committer on the XWiki.org project
