Re: [xwiki-devs] [Discussion] Committing date changes on document XML files
Le 25 juil. 2016 18:31, "Vincent Massol" <vincent@massol.net> a écrit :
On 25 Jul 2016, at 18:20, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent@massol.net>
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)
Isn’t this what happens now already, i.e. when an existing page is imported the current date is set (unless it’s a backup pack)?
Yes EM does not take into account plumbing stuff like date and version.
If the issue is about the diff, I guess we could have a diff that doesn’t
take into account the dates (or a better algorithm could be to not update a page that only has the date metadata modified). It's already the case...
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.
We should definitely not update pages with no changes.
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.
I we don’t update pages that haven’t been changed we won’t have this problem, right?
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.
And http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-11764
Thanks -Vincent
* Have AS and Watchlist exclude import / new wiki (already the case)
Thanks -Vincent
On 25 Jul 2016, at 14:08, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002@gmail.com> 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/1938dd18e1d25b8c03e4cb2228627...
[2] http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices [3]
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ApplicationDevelopmentBestPrac...
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
I'm +1 for not committing date changes and it would be helpful to ignore them at some point, since I need all the time to edit files to commit in order to revert date changes. Thanks, Alex On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com
wrote:
Le 25 juil. 2016 18:31, "Vincent Massol" <vincent@massol.net> a écrit :
On 25 Jul 2016, at 18:20, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent@massol.net>
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)
Isn’t this what happens now already, i.e. when an existing page is imported the current date is set (unless it’s a backup pack)?
Yes EM does not take into account plumbing stuff like date and version.
If the issue is about the diff, I guess we could have a diff that doesn’t
take into account the dates (or a better algorithm could be to not update a page that only has the date metadata modified).
It's already the case...
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.
We should definitely not update pages with no changes.
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.
I we don’t update pages that haven’t been changed we won’t have this problem, right?
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.
And http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-11764
Thanks -Vincent
* Have AS and Watchlist exclude import / new wiki (already the case)
Thanks -Vincent
On 25 Jul 2016, at 14:08, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002@gmail.com>
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/1938dd18e1d25b8c03e4cb2228627...
[2] http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices [3]
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ApplicationDevelopmentBestPrac...
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
git add --interactive On 07/27/2016 03:59 AM, Alexandru Cotiuga wrote:
I'm +1 for not committing date changes and it would be helpful to ignore them at some point, since I need all the time to edit files to commit in order to revert date changes.
Thanks, Alex
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com
wrote:
Le 25 juil. 2016 18:31, "Vincent Massol" <vincent@massol.net> a écrit :
On 25 Jul 2016, at 18:20, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent@massol.net>
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)
Isn’t this what happens now already, i.e. when an existing page is imported the current date is set (unless it’s a backup pack)?
Yes EM does not take into account plumbing stuff like date and version.
If the issue is about the diff, I guess we could have a diff that doesn’t
take into account the dates (or a better algorithm could be to not update a page that only has the date metadata modified).
It's already the case...
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.
We should definitely not update pages with no changes.
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.
I we don’t update pages that haven’t been changed we won’t have this problem, right?
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.
And http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-11764
Thanks -Vincent
* Have AS and Watchlist exclude import / new wiki (already the case)
Thanks -Vincent
On 25 Jul 2016, at 14:08, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002@gmail.com>
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/1938dd18e1d25b8c03e4cb2228627...
[2] http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices [3]
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ApplicationDevelopmentBestPrac...
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
To be honest, I use git add -p and, sometimes, it happens to have in the same hunk with date fields, some changes that I want to commit, so I have to edit that hunk and to manually revert the date changes. Hope my use case is more clear now. On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu@xwiki.org> wrote:
git add --interactive
On 07/27/2016 03:59 AM, Alexandru Cotiuga wrote:
I'm +1 for not committing date changes and it would be helpful to ignore them at some point, since I need all the time to edit files to commit in order to revert date changes.
Thanks, Alex
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Thomas Mortagne < thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com
wrote:
Le 25 juil. 2016 18:31, "Vincent Massol" <vincent@massol.net> a écrit :
On 25 Jul 2016, at 18:20, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent@massol.net>
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)
Isn’t this what happens now already, i.e. when an existing page is imported the current date is set (unless it’s a backup pack)?
Yes EM does not take into account plumbing stuff like date and version.
If the issue is about the diff, I guess we could have a diff that
doesn’t take into account the dates (or a better algorithm could be to not update a page that only has the date metadata modified).
It's already the case...
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.
We should definitely not update pages with no changes.
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.
I we don’t update pages that haven’t been changed we won’t have this problem, right?
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.
And http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-11764
Thanks -Vincent
* Have AS and Watchlist exclude import / new wiki (already the case)
Thanks -Vincent
> On 25 Jul 2016, at 14:08, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002@gmail.com>
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/1938dd18e1d25b8c03e4cb2228627...
> [2] http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices > [3] >
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ApplicationDevelopmentBestPrac...
> _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > devs@xwiki.org > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Alexandru Cotiuga < alexandru.cotiuga@xwiki.com> wrote:
To be honest, I use git add -p and, sometimes, it happens to have in the same hunk with date fields, some changes that I want to commit, so I have to edit that hunk and to manually revert the date changes. Hope my use case is more clear now.
You can use the "s" (split) option when you encounter such a group of changes.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu@xwiki.org> wrote:
git add --interactive
On 07/27/2016 03:59 AM, Alexandru Cotiuga wrote:
I'm +1 for not committing date changes and it would be helpful to ignore them at some point, since I need all the time to edit files to commit in order to revert date changes.
Thanks, Alex
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Thomas Mortagne < thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com
wrote:
Le 25 juil. 2016 18:31, "Vincent Massol" <vincent@massol.net> a écrit :
On 25 Jul 2016, at 18:20, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent@massol.net
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)
Isn’t this what happens now already, i.e. when an existing page is imported the current date is set (unless it’s a backup pack)?
Yes EM does not take into account plumbing stuff like date and version.
If the issue is about the diff, I guess we could have a diff that
doesn’t take into account the dates (or a better algorithm could be to not update a page that only has the date metadata modified).
It's already the case...
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.
We should definitely not update pages with no changes.
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.
I we don’t update pages that haven’t been changed we won’t have this problem, right?
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.
And http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-11764
Thanks -Vincent
* Have AS and Watchlist exclude import / new wiki (already the case) > > Thanks > -Vincent > >> On 25 Jul 2016, at 14:08, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002@gmail.com> 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/1938dd18e1d25b8c03e4cb2228627...
>> [2] http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices >> [3] >> >
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ApplicationDevelopmentBestPrac...
>> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> devs@xwiki.org >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > devs@xwiki.org > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
participants (4)
-
Alexandru Cotiuga -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne