Question that I think should be answered first : what is the audience and the objectives ?
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Guillaume Delhumeau < [email protected]> wrote: > +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 >
