On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Eduard Moraru <enygma2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi devs, > > These are the current code style rules for committed XML wiki pages: > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/XWikiXMLFilesCodeStyle > > = Proposal 1 = > > I was personally not aware we had documented these practices that we had > been applying since forever. It's good that we have them, but there seems > to be no mention about committing changes for the "creationDate", "date" > and "contentUpdateDate" fields. > > Part of the committers (including myself) are applying the old practice of > omitting changes to the date fields when committing a change to an XML wiki > page. However, since this practice is not written and agreed upon, its > usage is not consistent. > > So, the proposal is to include the rule of not committing changes on the > date fields of XML wiki pages. > > The rationale, AFAIR, includes: > * After an upgrade, users should not see "ghost" modifications in their > wiki (e.g. when sorting by date in the Page Index). This affects even more > manual imports with the "as backup" option enabled. > * On release, any date changes of a default translation XML page will > produce N other XML page changes, for each translation of the modified page > (due to the way l10n exports the translations based on the latest version > of the default language of that page). > * others? > > = Proposal 2 = > > Now, building on this, I would like to make a second proposal (which I > don't believe deserves a separate thread): > 1) Let's remove all date fields from committed XML wiki pages in our source > repository > 2) Let's make sure that the XAR import properly handles empty or missing > date fields and falls back on the current date
XAR input filter supports both but I don't see the point in having an empty date, better remove it. > 3) Let's update the xar:format goal to remove the date fields > (configurable, since it could they might still be needed by some content > projects, etc.) > 4) Let's make the build fail (xar:verify) if the XML wiki pages contain > date fields (again configurable, as above) > > Note: All the above still depend on the first proposal of not committing > date changes to XML files (which will be simplified by point 3) above). > > The rationale for this is that we have always wanted to fix our "dates > problem", since after installation, the wiki is populated with pages > created in 2009, which is extremely odd to users that have just installed > XWiki. This second proposal sounds to me like a solution for that. > > WDYT? > > Thanks, > Eduard - 1 for proposal 1 alone +1 with proposal 2 I don't care too much about update date vs not update date but we should not have to do any manual cleaning when exporting a page. So in short I'm against anything not handled by xar:format. (by the way http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/XWikiXMLFilesCodeStyle is not fully up to date since what is indicated for defaultLanguage is not true in case of translations) -- Thomas Mortagne
