IRC Archive for channel #xwiki

Last modified by Vincent Massol on 2012/10/18 19:11

CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:07): It's running now ho do I see AnnotationConfig as it's supposed to be?
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:07): s/ho/how
lucaa - (00:09): you should go to AnnotationCode/AnnotationConfig
lucaa - (00:10): ( CalebJamesDeLisl )
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:10): Yes, looking at in inline mode, I see it now.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:10): Looks like the problem is $msg.
lucaa - (00:11): ah, yes, of couse
lucaa - (00:11): course
lucaa - (00:12): because there's a little msg in a label at one point which doesn't get displayed either
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:14): Hmm, I put thisisatest at the top of AnnotationConfigSheet and it doesn't show up either...
lucaa - (00:15): actually that form is generated
lucaa - (00:16): the codeToxecute has no effect whatsoever
lucaa - (00:16): I just deleted it
lucaa - (00:16): the form is generated automatically from the class to configure, probably, for all its fields
lucaa - (00:16): for the object in the document which holds the ConfigurableClass object I assume
lucaa - (00:18): however if I just write some text in the codeToExecute, I get it printed at the top of the form...
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:19): Ahh, yes if you define a configuration class then it tries to generate a form for you.
lucaa - (00:20): well but if I don't, codeToExecute doesn't work the way I expect it to
lucaa - (00:21): {{include}} fails, #includeForm fails
lucaa - (00:21): (as in none displays anything)
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:25): Ok, try editing AnnotationConfig to say: {{include document="AnnotationCode.AnnotationConfigSheet"}}
lucaa - (00:26): right
lucaa - (00:26): but...
lucaa - (00:26): well... indeed doc says this way
lucaa - (00:27): that code to execute is just an extra that's added to the form created by setting the configuration class...
lucaa - (00:27): so I get my config doc in view mode
lucaa - (00:27): not inline
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:28): Yes, view mode, even if I specify inline in the url...
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:28):
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:28): (which is why 'admin' right is useless.)
lucaa - (00:30): right, so I would need to build my form with ConfigurableClass objects...
lucaa - (00:30): for the admin section
lucaa - (00:30): but
lucaa - (00:30): well... actually no but
lucaa - (00:30): but it would be nice to be able to just include a document like this
lucaa - (00:31): because config panels could be custom...
lucaa - (00:31): though 98% of them will be standard list of properties to set
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:31): Something is wrong, I put $xcontext.getAction() at the top of AnnotationConfigSheet and it shows inline.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:34): Ok, $doc is not what you think it is...  $doc.display is trying to display something from XWikiPreferences.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:39): in codeToexecute: {{include document="AnnotationCode.AnnotationConfig" context="new"}}
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:41): Only problem is no form, that on purpose because I can't know where you might want to submit the content to and with what buttons.
lucaa - (00:43): but but
lucaa - (00:44): that wouldn't work for the admin action which is used by default for the prefs
lucaa - (00:44): since I want an inline form...
lucaa - (00:45): well what would be nice would be to be able to just provide a sheet for the document to which the configurable class object is attached
lucaa - (00:46): and the sheet would be rendered and submitted to the document
lucaa - (00:46): anyway, I can workaround on that too
lucaa - (00:46): I can check the action in the config sheet
lucaa - (00:46): and also add the button if it's admin action
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:46): Well Denis wants some changes to Configurable as well.
lucaa - (00:47): yeah, we should gather some feedback from the way we use it
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:47): I agree there ought to be a way to include a document inside of a form.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:48): If you could #set($insideForm = true then you would get buttons, but #evaluate clears any variables when it's finished.
lucaa - (00:49): I don't think evaluate is the best function
lucaa - (00:49): why are you using evaluate and not xwiki.renderContent
lucaa - (00:49): or functions alike?
lucaa - (00:50): so that codeToExecute is not velo but wiki syntax?
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:50): I wasn't thinking at the time I guess.
marta1 left at 00:50 (Quit: Leaving.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:51): I was figuring on the main use being to generate a form from a class.
lucaa - (00:51): well, right now the {{include}} works only because #evaluate leaves it as it is, iiuc
lucaa - (00:51): as I said, it probably is
lucaa - (00:52): I mean probably 80% of the apps would use it to just generate a form
lucaa - (00:52): but even like this, codeToExecute would be nice to be wikisyntax
lucaa - (00:52): because if you want you can have velo in wikisyntax but not necessarrily the other way around
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:52): I think renderContent would clear variables when it ended too.
lucaa - (00:53): it's not only about vars
lucaa - (00:53): it just is nicer :)
lucaa - (00:53): and more inline with how xwiki works imho
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:53): And there is the matter of syntax, 1.0 or 2.0?
lucaa - (00:54): well, you could render it in the context of the document holding the configurable obj
lucaa - (00:54): and it would use that doc's syntax
lucaa - (00:54): I hope
lucaa - (00:54): (I mean it's just normal to work like that, I hope there's no bug and it does)
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:55): Hmm, I see XWiki.renderText but that calls the 1.0 rendering engine.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:56): Anything else is PR.
lucaa - (00:56): ah noooo :(
lucaa - (00:56): and why not pr?
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:57): That would be the one line which made Configurable require PR. And it proves that we can't do what we need with our own API.
sdumitriu left at 00:57 (Ping timeout: 258 seconds
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:57): I don't like providing script to users then hiding behind java every time we want to do something, it doesn't look good.
lucaa - (00:58): well, I'd say configurable is pretty special
lucaa - (00:58): adding things to the administration panel is not something which makes sense to be done without pr
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:58): Subwikis?
lucaa - (00:59): but yes, we should have renderText() for syntax 2.0
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:59): What do you get for calling rendering engine instead of #evaluate?
lucaa - (00:59): rephrase, I don't understand
CalebJamesDeLisl - (00:59): What is the advantage?
lucaa - (01:00): as I said, #evaluate evaluates that content as velocity
lucaa - (01:00): and it would be nicer if that content would be just wiki syntax
lucaa - (01:00): which would include a {{velocity}} macro if it needed velocity
lucaa - (01:00): maybe I want to write my script to execute in a different language
lucaa - (01:01): like groovy or whatever
CalebJamesDeLisl - (01:01): You can, just use a groovy macro.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (01:01): If you use $ or # in groovy you might get into trouble because it passes by velocity first.
lucaa - (01:02): which would work because
lucaa - (01:02): {{groovy}}
lucaa - (01:02): doesn't mean anything in velo, and #evaluate renders it as {{groovy and it's picked up and all
lucaa - (01:02): and that's a bit wrong
lucaa - (01:02): as flow of rendering...
lucaa - (01:02): and yes trouble can come from the fact that velo is interpreted first
CalebJamesDeLisl - (01:03): That was a big pain with 1.0 when I tried to use groovy to write velocity :)
anamarias left at 01:03 (Quit: anamarias
lucaa - (01:03): it would be nicer to be just wiki syntax, but if there's no choice in terms of API, I think we can leave it like that
CalebJamesDeLisl - (01:04): But you can just use an include call in the codeToExecute text and then do what you want on the included page.
lucaa - (01:04): you mean #include ?
CalebJamesDeLisl - (01:04): {{include or #includeForm it doesn't matter.
lucaa - (01:04): but then why wouldn't you just have a field called "page to include" ?
lucaa - (01:05): and do the #include() instead of #execute() ?
lucaa - (01:05): sorry
lucaa - (01:05): #evaluate I meant
lucaa - (01:05): anyway
lucaa - (01:05): there are solutions
lucaa - (01:05): it's not a problem of lack of solutions
CalebJamesDeLisl - (01:05): I knew I couldn't expect all possibilities  so I was a generic as possible.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (01:06): s/a/as
lucaa - (01:06): I just feel it would be more in the spirit of xwiki if that field would be wikisyntax
lucaa - (01:06): now, if there's no renderText for 2.0. that sucks, and it means that it can't really be done
CalebJamesDeLisl - (01:07): I tend to agree, I wonder what happens if we nested velocity macros :D
lucaa - (01:09): i should cd ~/bed now...
lucaa - (01:09): have a nice afternoon/evening (am I right?), see you tomorrow
CalebJamesDeLisl - (01:09): Yes evening.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (01:10): #set($someCode = '{{velocity}}#set($lo = "llo") he$lo{{/velocity}}')  $someCode
CalebJamesDeLisl - (01:10): We might be able to just paste wikisyntax into a page and make it evaluate :)
CalebJamesDeLisl - (01:11): </hugeHack>
CalebJamesDeLisl - (01:14): Going to get something to eat. G'night.
bbc581 left at 01:22 (Remote host closed the connection
nickless left at 02:54 (Ping timeout: 265 seconds
bbc581 joined #xwiki at 04:18
DV left at 07:24 (Ping timeout: 276 seconds
DV joined #xwiki at 07:28
mflorea joined #xwiki at 07:44
plunden joined #xwiki at 08:00
kibahop joined #xwiki at 08:03
vmassol joined #xwiki at 08:08
vmassol left at 08:11 (*.net *.split
npm1 left at 08:11 (*.net *.split
DV left at 08:11 (*.net *.split
vmassol joined #xwiki at 08:29
DV joined #xwiki at 08:29
npm1 joined #xwiki at 08:29
DV left at 08:46 (Ping timeout: 264 seconds
DV joined #xwiki at 08:48
Denis joined #xwiki at 08:52
Enygma` joined #xwiki at 09:09
arkub joined #xwiki at 09:31
lucaa left at 09:35 (Quit: Leaving.
jvelo joined #xwiki at 09:48
jvelo - (09:52): hi vmassol
jvelo - (09:52): I'm about to install a XEM 2.2.3
jvelo - (09:53): there is a nasty bug that have been fixed since the release, as I understand
tmortagne joined #xwiki at 09:55
KermitTheFragger joined #xwiki at 09:56
silviar joined #xwiki at 10:02
jvelo - (10:04): tmortagne: hi
tmortagne - (10:04): hi
jvelo - (10:04): I need some info I'm going to install a XEM2.2.3
jvelo - (10:04): there's a bug fixed since the release I understand
tmortagne - (10:05): info: you should probably wait for 2.2.4
jvelo - (10:05): is there an artifact I can replace with a built one ?
jvelo - (10:05): I can't wait, I'm on site this morning.
tmortagne - (10:06): jvelo: in theory wikimodel is enough but problem is that some pages of XE was based on the bug and are now broken...
tmortagne - (10:06): i'm currently fixing them
jvelo - (10:06): ok
jvelo - (10:06): what's the JIRA issue ?
jvelo - (10:07): can you tell me what pages/features are broken if I use the wikimodel patch ? (I will have web access after the install so I can import the fixes)
tmortagne - (10:07): there is several important bug fixed actuall, not sure what is neededd for the right issue one
tmortagne - (10:08):
tmortagne - (10:09): for the page, i did not keep a list, i will make one when i'm done fixing them, i can tel you that for the more visible ones there is the dashboard, AllDoc sub pages, User Profile sub pages
jvelo - (10:09): ok
lucaa joined #xwiki at 10:15
lucaa1 joined #xwiki at 10:15
lucaa1 left at 10:16 (Client Quit
vmassol - (10:30): tmortagne: good morning, there are several functional tests that fail, don't know if you've seen them. Could they be related to the changes you did to fix the bad usage of macros?
tmortagne - (10:30): vmassol: yes i know i'm working on it, selenium tests should be ok now but there is still some pages you can seen in validation tests
vmassol - (10:31): ok
vmassol left at 10:36 (Quit: Leaving.
vmassol joined #xwiki at 10:38
lucaa - (10:44): tmortagne: I need some help with the fixes for incorrect usage of macros
lucaa - (10:44): (mornin' btw)
lucaa - (10:45): I have a velocity macro, I do some variables setting (without printing anything) and then I have a {{html}} macro in. I get an error about newlines around the html macro, when there isn't actually any content around it to separate it from
tmortagne - (10:45): lucaa: hi, i fixed some annotation code already, is there more ?
lucaa - (10:45): checkout AnnotationCode.CreateForm
lucaa - (10:45): I'll look
tmortagne - (10:46): lucaa: you mean you have {{/velocity}}{{html}} ?
tmortagne - (10:46): {{/velocity}}
tmortagne - (10:46): {{html}}
tmortagne - (10:46): (i remember fixing things like that in annotation indeed)
lucaa - (10:46): no, I mean I have
lucaa - (10:46): {{velocity}} some #sets & ifs then {{html}} html code {{/html}}{{/velocity}}
tmortagne - (10:47): ha, well there should not be any issue
tmortagne - (10:47): it's your whole content ?
lucaa - (10:47): lemme check what you committed
lucaa - (10:48): did you commit?
tmortagne - (10:50): i did commits yesterday
lucaa - (10:51): ok, only AnnotationCode.Settings in annotations
lucaa - (10:51): and yes, this is strange
lucaa - (10:51): in the case of annotationcode.settings...
lucaa - (10:51): there's a velocity output false
lucaa - (10:51): then velocity html
lucaa - (10:52): and I need a new line before the second velocity
lucaa - (10:52): why? since the first one prints nothing
lucaa - (10:52): and the whole content of the doc should be the second html
lucaa - (10:52): ?
lucaa - (10:52): I mean the only html
tmortagne - (10:53): lucaa: let me look at the code
lucaa - (10:53): ok
tmortagne - (10:53): (its possible i did to much)
tmortagne - (10:55): ok i see what was the issue, seems like rendering doe snot work the way you think it's working:
tmortagne - (10:55): when you have
tmortagne - (10:55): {{macro/}}
tmortagne - (10:55): {{macro/}}
tmortagne - (10:55): the content is parsed and then the macro are executed, it does not matter that the first one doe snot produce anything, it's already too late
tmortagne - (10:56): both macro has already been parsed as inline macros
lucaa - (10:56): but btw, the settings panel works without the new line
lucaa - (10:56): however
tmortagne - (10:56): lucaa: it's working maybe but your second maro is inline which was not the goal i think
lucaa - (10:57): ok
tmortagne - (10:57): i fixed all inline/standalone mixup i could find even if the page was not really broken
lucaa - (10:58): you mean a paragraph is started already when the velocity output false is executed>
lucaa - (10:58): ?
anamarias joined #xwiki at 10:58
tmortagne - (10:59): i mean the xdom for
tmortagne - (10:59): {{macro/}}
tmortagne - (10:59): {{macro/}}
tmortagne - (10:59): is
tmortagne - (10:59): * ParagraphBlock
tmortagne - (10:59):   * inline macro block
tmortagne - (10:59):   * inline macro block
tmortagne - (10:59): * ParagraphBlock
tmortagne - (10:59):   * inline macro block
tmortagne - (10:59):   * new line block
tmortagne - (10:59):   * inline macro block
tmortagne - (10:59): (forgot the newline)
lucaa - (10:59): so if I plan to start a document with a macro, it's gonna be inline unless I leave an empty line right at the start of the doc?
lucaa - (11:00): lemme make a test
tmortagne - (11:00): why ?
tmortagne - (11:00): it's on line because you have two inline element in the same paragraph
tmortagne - (11:00): if you have onle a amcro without anything around it's standalone
tmortagne - (11:01): because there is nothing that makes it inline
lucaa - (11:01): ok
lucaa - (11:01): it's strange that a macro that doesn't output anything
lucaa - (11:01): makes the next macro inline
lucaa - (11:01): ...
vmassol - (11:01): not for me
tmortagne - (11:01): probleme is that parser has no idea what the macro will do
vmassol - (11:02): pretty natural
lucaa - (11:02): same for the AnnotationCode.CreateForm, where lines of velo code that don't output anything make the next html macro inline...
vmassol - (11:02): otherwise as a writer you'd have no way of knowing if your code is going to be inline or not
lucaa - (11:03): ok, I agree for the second case it could be hard to know, but for the first case it feels strange on the usage side...
tmortagne - (11:03): and as Vincent saif if that was than random there would be no way to properly handle inline/standalone in the wiki source
lucaa - (11:03): random?
tmortagne - (11:04): a macro is a black box for the rendering
lucaa - (11:04): right
tmortagne - (11:04): maybe it will produce something maybe not it has no way to know that
lucaa - (11:04): but they are executed in a series, aren't they?
lucaa - (11:05): I mean, I should know when I execute the second macro what has produces he first macro
lucaa - (11:05): or not?
tmortagne - (11:05): don't mix executin and parsing, theses are too different steps
tmortagne - (11:05): when you execute it we already decided the XDOM
lucaa - (11:06): I will assume this is the right way and resume adding new lines around the sources
vmassol - (11:07): lucaa: all this is simply becuase we've decided that NL are significant (rather than forcing users to use \\ when they want a new line for ex)
lucaa - (11:09): ok... I think i understand why is that needed
lucaa - (11:09): I'm just saying it feels a bit strange on this other side
lucaa - (11:09): but I can get used to it
vmassol - (11:15): guys today is supposed to be the release of XE 2.3M2….
tmortagne - (11:19): 2.2.4 probably too
mflorea left at 11:24 (Quit: Leaving.
vmassol - (11:28): still cannot build platform
vmassol - (11:28): trying maven 2.2.x now
tmortagne - (11:29): vmassol: you can't build with maven 3 ?
vmassol - (11:29): (I tried with maven 3 alpha 5 & 7)
vmassol - (11:29): tmortagne: yep
tmortagne - (11:29): ok
vmassol - (11:29): memory pb
vmassol - (11:29): even though I have 1GB
vmassol - (11:30): I didn't have this before
vmassol - (11:30): so something changed in our build
vmassol - (11:30): maybe just more modules to build
tmortagne - (11:30): maybe
vmassol - (11:30): but still 1GB is quite large
tmortagne - (11:30): yes
tmortagne - (11:30): you crash on unit tests ?
vmassol - (11:30): no
vmassol - (11:31): when build apps at the end
vmassol - (11:31): s/build/building/
tmortagne - (11:31): ha so that's maven issue then ?
vmassol - (11:31): maybe yes
tmortagne - (11:33): AFAIR there is a big change in the way maven 3 handle the build, it's supposed to keep some informations about the whole build before starting to build any module now, right ?
vmassol - (11:33): no idea
mariusbutuc joined #xwiki at 11:34
lucaa - (12:00): guys, I seem to be getting a 403 forbidden when I try to commit in applications
lucaa - (12:00): any hints?
tmortagne - (12:00): maybe an issue on
lucaa - (12:04): tried again, it worked now. It will remain a mystery
vmassol - (12:08): lucaa: ok build successful with maven 2.2.1
mflorea joined #xwiki at 12:10
DV left at 12:15 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
DV joined #xwiki at 12:21
sdumitriu joined #xwiki at 12:34
arkub left at 13:21 (Ping timeout: 246 seconds
florinciu joined #xwiki at 13:45
DV left at 13:46 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
bbc581 left at 13:52 (Ping timeout: 246 seconds
florinciu left at 13:59 (Ping timeout: 260 seconds
florinciu joined #xwiki at 14:00
glerouge joined #xwiki at 14:11
silviar left at 14:38 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
mflorea1 joined #xwiki at 14:42
mflorea left at 14:42 (Ping timeout: 258 seconds
Enygma` left at 14:42 (Ping timeout: 246 seconds
lucaa left at 14:43 (Ping timeout: 264 seconds
mariusbutuc left at 14:43 (Ping timeout: 248 seconds
silviar joined #xwiki at 14:43
florinciu left at 14:43 (Ping timeout: 252 seconds
Enygma` joined #xwiki at 14:45
lucaa joined #xwiki at 14:45
florinciu joined #xwiki at 14:47
anamarias left at 14:53 (Quit: anamarias
Enygma` left at 14:58 (Quit: Leaving.
bbc581 joined #xwiki at 15:32
lucaa - (15:48): vmassol: ping
vmassol - (15:48): lupong
vmassol - (15:49): lucaa: pong
lucaa - (15:49): you said once that annotations should be packed in less jars. What's your vision about this? which things should go together and which should stay separate?
lucaa - (15:50): I mean I would like to do this repacking, potentially now and I would like some advice about how to group
vmassol - (15:51): lucaa: I don't know enough but I can ask some questions
vmassol - (15:51): why is IO not core?
vmassol - (15:51): can the core stuff work without IO?
vmassol - (15:51): what is maintainer? (not explicit)
lucaa - (15:51): yes, with a different implementation of the IO module (scribo impl for example)
vmassol - (15:51): but IO is an api or an implementation?
vmassol - (15:52): if it's an impl
vmassol - (15:52): it shouldn't be named like this
lucaa - (15:52): it's an impl
vmassol - (15:52): so it's not IO
vmassol - (15:52): it's "default" or "basic" or "xwiki"
vmassol - (15:52): but not io
lucaa - (15:52): and also it's the one depending on the old xwiki when core doesn't
lucaa - (15:52): yes, I agree it should be renamed
vmassol - (15:52): what is core?
vmassol - (15:52): is it the api?
lucaa - (15:52): old xwiki = old core
lucaa - (15:52): core is API + renderer
lucaa - (15:53): and impl of the API == wiring all the IO & renderer together
lucaa - (15:54): + components common to multiple modules (content for example, content filter)
bbc581 left at 15:58 (Ping timeout: 276 seconds
florinciu left at 16:00 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
florinciu joined #xwiki at 16:00
lucaa - (16:11): I'm thinking of merging core with reference and potentially maintainer (or at least all interfaces and abstract impls in maintainer) in a single jar, leave IO aside but rename it to some xwiki or default or smth, and also potentially merging rest and velocity under some "apis" module
tmortagne - (16:11): lucaa: you did not fixed the right thing in CreateForm, at the end of the content
lucaa - (16:11): tmortagne: possibl
lucaa - (16:11): e
tmortagne - (16:11): the issue is that you start a new velocity macro instead of closing the current one
tmortagne - (16:12): you have{{velocity}} instead of {{/velocity}}
tmortagne - (16:12): which is why your html macro was inline
plunden left #xwiki at 16:12
lucaa - (16:12): yes, I can see that, I was just wondering...
lucaa - (16:12): tmortagne: are you handling it or I should?
tmortagne - (16:12): i'm on it
lucaa - (16:13): tmortagne: cool thanks
tmortagne - (16:13): (you also introduce a new bug in AnnotationCode.WebHome)
lucaa - (16:14): which one?
lucaa - (16:15): hmm...
lucaa - (16:15): which one?
tmortagne - (16:15): your include macro is part of the paragraph
lucaa - (16:16): so new lines before includes also?
tmortagne - (16:16): (that has nothing to do with the change it always has been like that)
tmortagne - (16:16): the only thing that changed is macro<NEWLINE>macro that was not consistent with all other behaviors (paragraph<NEWLINE>macro, etc...)
lucaa - (16:17): so what's the bug in annotationcode.webhome?
lucaa - (16:17): the fact that the include is in a para?
tmortagne - (16:17): yes
lucaa - (16:17): I see no real difference on display between the two
tmortagne - (16:18): maybe but it produce invalid xhtml
lucaa - (16:18): block _might_ be right, but I can't tell...
lucaa - (16:18): sorry in this case, I am user
lucaa - (16:18): I am a user
tmortagne - (16:18): hudson told me otherwise i would never noticed it
lucaa - (16:19): anyway, would you fix that too, please?
tmortagne - (16:20): yes it's commited
tmortagne - (16:21): i think i fixed all XE pages now
tmortagne - (16:21): (and application XE depends on)
tmortagne - (16:24): guys is there anything still not finished that is supposed to go in 2.2.4 ? I would like to release tomorrow morning
vmassol - (16:26): I'm finishing fixing
vmassol - (16:26): I should be able to commit in 10 mn
DV joined #xwiki at 16:44
sdumitriu left at 16:46 (Ping timeout: 265 seconds
vmassol - (16:48): done
vmassol - (16:48): tmortagne: you can send a mail for the 2.2.4 release maybe
vmassol - (16:48): I'll send one for the 2.3M2 one and some ideas for going forward
vmassol - (16:49): btw everyone, would be great if you could test entering any char in document names and find if it fails anywhere
vmassol - (16:49): I couldn't make it fail but I'm sure there are places that should fail
tmortagne - (16:49): vmassol: sure i was waiting for my last committ, writing the mail now
DV left at 17:06 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
lucaa - (17:12): team, is there any way to specify that the group of a dependency should be the same as the group of this artifact, or its parent's?
vmassol - (17:14): no
lucaa - (17:14): ok
florinciu left at 17:16 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
DV joined #xwiki at 17:24
DV left at 17:24 (Remote host closed the connection
tmortagne - (17:26): CalebJamesDeLisl: is compatible with 2.2 ?
plunden joined #xwiki at 17:39
vmassol - (17:42): note: rename doesn't work yet with special chars in doc names, working on it
tmortagne - (17:44): hmm that's weird, i did not touched XWiki.XWikiAllGroup
vmassol - (17:44): still the same bug
vmassol - (17:44): fixed in 2.3M1
vmassol - (17:44): I removed a spam
tmortagne - (17:45): but i don't see your delete
vmassol - (17:45): yes something is not working anymore in the bot I guess
vmassol - (17:45): I mentioned this some time back
vmassol - (17:45): but I haven't researched the pb yet
jvelo left at 17:48 (Quit: Page closed
vmassol - (17:48): mflorea1: fyi wysiwyg editor init is quite slow for me - 3-4 seconds min before I can type
silviar left at 17:49 (Quit: Leaving.
vmassol - (17:50): (when creating a new page)
mflorea1 - (17:51): what XE version and what browser?
vmassol - (17:51): it's not new
vmassol - (17:51): XE from trunk, and FF 3.6.
vmassol - (17:51): is it faster for you?
vmassol - (17:52): for me it's about 3-4 seconds and I think it's slightly faster when editing an existing page (about 2-3 seconds instead)
tmortagne - (17:52): vmassol: always or only the first time you load a page ?
tmortagne - (17:52): (after xwiki restart)
vmassol - (17:52): I tried several times
vmassol - (17:52): so always
mflorea1 - (17:53): is it a XE build by you or by Hudson?
vmassol - (17:53): by me
vmassol - (17:53): with -Pdev btw
vmassol - (17:53): (if that matters)
mflorea1 - (17:53): so the JS is not obfuscated. You build with -Pdev
mflorea1 - (17:54): the unobfuscated JS is around 5MB, the obfuscated one is less that 500KB
vmassol - (17:54): ok so maybe that's it
mflorea1 - (17:55): also, Firebug can increase the loading time if it's enabled
vmassol - (17:55): it's not enabled in this case
vmassol - (17:56): I'll try again with no -Pdev
mflorea1 - (17:56): no :)
mflorea1 - (17:57): it's quicker to download a jetty+hsqldb distribution build by Hudson. Building the WYSIWYG without -Pdev take a lot of time and resources
vmassol - (17:57): ok
lucaa left #xwiki at 18:06
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:13): tmortagne: Yes, Configurable will work with 2.2 but my philosophy would be to keep 2.2.x for bug fixes only. You can of course make the judgment call.
tmortagne - (18:15): CalebJamesDeLisl: it's not that simple, i can't choose what issue i take in an application, i want coming bugfixes that will be in administration app
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:17): I understand, it will add another parameter to turn off captcha which will also be off by default.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:17): (On the registration page)
tmortagne - (18:17): in theory the current branch is the stable branch, if something in an application breaks the stable branch then it mean it needs a branch
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:17): That's the only issue I can think of.    I'd better double check the translations...
tmortagne - (18:17): ok
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:18): Oh wait, that was in 2.2, I just didn't close the issue because at first I regarded it as "beta" and then I just forgot about it.
tmortagne - (18:19): CalebJamesDeLisl: so the fix for is wrong ?
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:20): It's for 2.3?  I'm not sure how it should read.
tmortagne - (18:20): 2.2.3 is using 1.29, 1.30 has been released for 2.3M1
tmortagne - (18:20): CalebJamesDeLisl: but you should see when you committed and compare t to the admin app released dates
tmortagne - (18:21): to be sure
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:21): Ok, then I guess I set it incorrectly.
tmortagne - (18:21): so it's not in 2.2 then ?
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:21): double checking...
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:22): It is indeed in 1.29
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:24): It is also in 1.28 but named XWiki.Configurable
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:25): and 1.27, I didn't know releases were going on. I guess I need to use /sandbox/ in the future.
npm1 left at 18:26 (Quit: Leaving.
npm joined #xwiki at 18:26
tmortagne - (18:27): CalebJamesDeLisl: application/plugins are released with each XE release
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:28): Because 2.x.x releases are going on at the same time it seems plugins and applications have a much shorter release period than core code.
Denis - (18:29): CalebJamesDeLisl:
Denis - (18:29): feel free to improve :)
tmortagne - (18:31): Denis: should be in i think
Denis - (18:35): tmortagne: wasn't sure it could be in first place
npm - (18:36): for 2.2.4 and other releases, i think it would be a good idea to have a small group of testers pretest a release; when a few give the "works for me" signal, then that enables a general "stable" release (c.f. fedora updates/bodhi model )
Denis - (18:36): tmortagne: should I move it now ?
tmortagne - (18:36): Denis: +1
vmassol - (18:37): npm: +1 that's what staging is for, we are planning to move to that using nexus
tmortagne - (18:37): space is more for pages in beta version, documentation etc...
vmassol - (18:38): s/we are planning/I'd like us/
vmassol - (18:38): ;)
npm - (18:38): but baby-steps could be taken in the meantime
vmassol - (18:39): well baby steps are already here
vmassol - (18:39): anyone willing to participate can and should do it already
vmassol - (18:39): at any time you can grab a snapshot
npm - (18:39): for example just before a release, say here's the maven locations of 2.2.4 xar and war -
vmassol - (18:39): and test it
vmassol - (18:39): before a release is actually too late
npm - (18:39): and then give 24-48 hours prior to pushing to stable
vmassol - (18:39): since it means pushing back the release
tmortagne - (18:39): npm: you can already test the current state of XE all the time
Denis - (18:39): tmortagne: to add it in the table, is it the fullname that I should provide to the form ?
npm - (18:40): and when i mean release i mean "making it avail on download page"
tmortagne - (18:40): it's built and deployed all day long
tmortagne - (18:40): no need for a release to have a testable version
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:40): One thing that could be done would be show a "stable" release and also an "unstable" release on the downloads page.
npm - (18:40): but that doesn't help those wanting to have a specific release installed for QA purposes
vmassol - (18:40): CalebJamesDeLisl: that'"s what we do AFAIK
mflorea1 left at 18:40 (Quit: Leaving.
tmortagne - (18:41): Denis: the name of what ?
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:41): Right you are. It seems to me I saw "stable" and "older stable" at one time.
npm - (18:41): it's really just a matter of communications: send out a mail saying the 2.X.X prerelease is almost ready for those wanting to make sure the actual release has no regressions
vmassol - (18:42): npm: right
Denis - (18:42): tmortagne: to add a design proposal in the table ?
vmassol - (18:42): npm: 2.2.4 is almost ready to release. Can you test it?
tmortagne - (18:42): Denis: the table is dynamic, your page has to have a design object
npm - (18:42): i.e. just send out a link saying here's the files on maven -- before deploying to objectweb
vmassol - (18:43): npm: a maven release is what counts
tmortagne - (18:43): Denis: see
vmassol - (18:43): so we cannot do this
npm - (18:43): yes, if you can point me to the war and jar on maven
vmassol - (18:43): unlesss we use a staging repo
npm - (18:43): i can test 2.2.4
vmassol - (18:43): ok here it is:
npm - (18:43): and see if there's the weird issues i saw w/rt xwiki:Xwiki.Admin
Denis - (18:43): tmortagne: is the form at the top of Design.WebHome useless ?
vmassol - (18:44):
vmassol - (18:44): (take the latest one)
vmassol - (18:44): 18:17 is the latest one right now
tmortagne - (18:44): Denis: i guess it's used to create a new design page
npm - (18:44): is that the one that will become the 2.2.4 release?
vmassol - (18:45): unless there are other changes after yes
tmortagne - (18:45): but since you already have page it's easier to modify your page
npm - (18:46): well let me test the final-final release then (my upgrade process is hard enough that it will take all day, so i don't want to upgrade and then have to upgrade to 2.2.4 again)
tmortagne - (18:46): (and i'm not sure what the form to create a new page takes)
tmortagne - (18:47): (Denis)
Denis - (18:48): tmortagne: do it the hard way then :)
Denis - (18:48): -do+done
CalebJamesDeLisl - (18:50): I'm going to commit the addition of saveAsAuthor to the api, the vote has been up since Thursday and before that it was a proposal since last Monday.
vmassol - (18:54): npm: sorry but that's not going to happen
vmassol - (18:55): we need to release 2.2.4 tomorrow
vmassol - (18:55): so if you can test it before that's great
vmassol - (18:55): if not then we just have to hope it's ok
tmortagne - (18:55): Denis: btw i will need you to create a user in more personal than softec which is not nice when looking at svn log, something like dgervalle maybe (to add you as committer)
vmassol - (18:58): agree with tmortagne, we are individuals here, not company
tmortagne - (18:59): and you could have another committer from softec matybe one day
Denis - (18:59): that was just an account name, why doesn't the bot use fullnames ?
glerouge - (18:59): svn logs
glerouge - (19:00): it's not a bot issue
tmortagne - (19:00): Denis: i'm talking about the user id you will use to committ things
Denis - (19:00): you means that users are those use to commit as well ?
tmortagne - (19:00): yes
tmortagne - (19:01): apache authenticate on
vmassol - (19:01): it even authenticates on subwikis, each top level projects has its committer group on its subwiki
Denis - (19:02): is it secure ?
CalebJamesDeLisl - (19:04): Looks from nslookup like and are hosted on the same subnet so there aren't any plaintext passwords being kicked around.
gvallarelli joined #xwiki at 19:04
gvallarelli - (19:04): hi all
CalebJamesDeLisl - (19:04): Hi gvallarelli
vmassol - (19:05): tmortagne: just noticed that you haven't said when you wanted to release 2.2.4
vmassol - (19:06): (in your email)
tmortagne - (19:07): vmassol: it's a ASAP, probably tomorrow morning if nothing blocker
vmassol - (19:07): I know
vmassol - (19:08): but you haven't mentioned it
vmassol - (19:08): so people can't guess
vmassol - (19:08): and don't know until when they can test, etc
vmassol - (19:08): (see npm's messages above)
tmortagne - (19:08): sure but a assumed that no date meant ASAP
vmassol - (19:08): ok but better be explicit since I don't think it's obvious
tmortagne - (19:09): ok
npm - (19:09): the issue is that any release needs an "integration test" and "system test"... even something trivial like going from maven repo to final release ie. changing version number .. needs to be tested
vmassol - (19:09): npm: we have that already
npm - (19:10): that's automated testing. i'm talking about user testing
vmassol - (19:10): it's the same
vmassol - (19:10): both are incomplete
npm - (19:10): i can geneate use cases that no test can cover
vmassol - (19:10): I don't agree
vmassol - (19:11): :)
npm - (19:11): well, for example, i modified for my own usages, giving fully qualified names to all users
npm - (19:11): and that broke in 2.2 3
vmassol - (19:11): why wouldn't be able to test this?
vmassol - (19:12): so it's not about can or not can
npm - (19:12): because you couldn't apriori figure out all the crazy random things users will do
vmassol - (19:12): is whether we will have it or not I guess
vmassol - (19:12): npm: yes but honestly it doesn't help
vmassol - (19:12): we do that with all milestones for ex
tmortagne left at 19:12 (Quit: Leaving.
vmassol - (19:12): and we still have lots of bugs when we release the final
npm - (19:12): the question is how large a test community do you have for the milestones
vmassol - (19:13): yes the pb is that everyone waits for the final
vmassol - (19:13): same as you here
npm - (19:13): if the test community is basically people close to xwiki project, you may not cover enough use cases
vmassol - (19:13): you just mentioned you want to wait for it to be final before testing
vmassol - (19:13): in practice there are very few people willing to spend the time to test in advance
npm - (19:13): no, i'd be willing to wait for just prior to final, in the hopes that when i find no bugs, i don't have to upgrade again.
vmassol - (19:14): right but it's too late
npm - (19:14): but that practice might come from the release process that's occurred to date
vmassol - (19:14): it's ok only if there are no bugs
vmassol - (19:15): I think the pb arises now simply because we've taken risks we knew we weer taking in 2.2
npm - (19:15): the thing is , if I upgrade to a maven release, i don't really know what relase version i'm at for qa purposes
vmassol - (19:15): and unfortunately not many people in the community cared
npm - (19:15): and then i have to upgrade to final again
vmassol - (19:15): so they didn't bother testing the milestones
vmassol - (19:16): hence the 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3
vmassol - (19:16): (2.2.4 is different)
npm - (19:16): i think the community cared, it's just that for a real test, an upgrade (for me) ends up being a > 1 day process (and that's w/o interruptions)...
vmassol - (19:16): for qa prupose you always know the ewact version you're testing
vmassol - (19:16): exact
vmassol - (19:16): since we use the svn revision in the version
npm - (19:17): i can test badly in "standalone" that won't actually catch all the weird cases... it's the testing w/ deep integration into working wikis that catches the probs.. and those wikis are the ones people are most resistant to upgrading due to time/cost
vmassol - (19:17): npm: exactly
vmassol - (19:17): and for this you need to really use it in prodcution
vmassol - (19:17): hence the problem
vmassol - (19:18): this is one reason btw that I'd like to remove all notions of milestones in the future
vmassol - (19:18): s/that/for whic/
npm - (19:18): so the thing is, i'm already willing to risk an upgrade to 2.2.4.. but if i find a probllem 1 day before release, you can skip another regression and release cycle
npm - (19:19): but if i find a bug in "maven release 234343" nobody will know what release i'm taling about
vmassol - (19:19): of course we'll know
vmassol - (19:19): since that number is the svn revision
vmassol - (19:20): we can reproduce it
vmassol - (19:20): and thus fix it
npm - (19:20): in other words, have a handful of people willing to test a relase prior to the full release . i'm willing to be one of those people
vmassol - (19:20): ok that's good to know and great already :)
vmassol - (19:20): ™
vmassol - (19:20): oops
vmassol - (19:20): thomas has left
vmassol - (19:20): but the release is going to happen tomorrow
vmassol - (19:21): so if you can do a quick test before tomorrow on the .2.2 branch that would be great
gvallarelli left #xwiki at 19:22
npm - (19:22): will try. passover is tonight so i may not have enough time to finish...
vmassol - (19:22): Denis: you need a user name in lowercase
vmassol - (19:22): dgervalle
vmassol - (19:23): you can have 2 on if you want, one for svn and one for editing
Denis - (19:23): vmassol: do you mind to rename DenisG into denisg ?
vmassol - (19:23): you don't have the rights?
npm - (19:23): re "of course we'll know" -- the xwiki team will know and understand, but outsiders trying to figure out if the bug/issue I find is related to their issue and versions.. then they'll be confused
Denis - (19:23): not currently, no
vmassol - (19:24): done:
Denis - (19:24): euh, isn't denisg fine ?
vmassol - (19:25): well we use the other format
vmassol - (19:25): so better be consistent imo
vmassol - (19:25): even thought it's not a hard rule
vmassol - (19:25): *though
vmassol - (19:25): actually it's a rule
Denis - (19:25): well, I used to avoid gervalle, because many spell it gerval
vmassol - (19:26): except for those who had an account before we decided on that rule
vmassol - (19:26): actually even ludovic was renamed to ldubost
vmassol - (19:26): (it was ludovic before)
Denis - (19:26): but if there is rules, that is ok
vmassol - (19:26): there's only who escaped it … not sure how she did it !
vmassol - (19:26):  :)
vmassol - (19:27): s/only/only anca/
vmassol left at 19:33 (Quit: Leaving.
vmassol joined #xwiki at 19:35
anamarias joined #xwiki at 20:01
glerouge left at 20:01 (Quit: Leaving.
tmortagne joined #xwiki at 20:13
sdumitriu joined #xwiki at 20:17
tmortagne - (20:35): xwiki
tmortagne - (20:35): farm is down it seems
tmortagne - (20:35): ha it's probably OS upgrade
gvallarelli joined #xwiki at 20:54
gvallarelli - (20:54): hello again :)
bbc581 joined #xwiki at 21:11
KermitTheFragger left at 21:18 (Quit: Leaving
DV joined #xwiki at 21:20
jvelociter joined #xwiki at 21:20
mflorea joined #xwiki at 21:21
DV left at 21:27 (Read error: Connection reset by peer
DV joined #xwiki at 21:28
tmortagne left at 21:32 (Quit: Leaving.
sdumitriu left at 21:38 (Ping timeout: 248 seconds
gvallarelli - (21:45): got to go
gvallarelli - (21:45): goodbye
gvallarelli left at 21:46 (Quit: Sto andando via
sdumitriu joined #xwiki at 22:06
lucaa joined #xwiki at 22:12
sdumitriu - (22:38): Hi CalebJamesDeLisl
mflorea left at 22:55 (Quit: Leaving.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:12): hi sdumitriu
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:16): (Was gone making pizza dough, it's rising now.)
vmassol - (23:16): nice :)
jvelociter left at 23:18 (Quit: jvelociter
sdumitriu - (23:21): CalebJamesDeLisl: You're a bit hasty with commits
sdumitriu - (23:22): The rules for votes say that you need at least three answers before a vote passes
sdumitriu - (23:22): You had only two for the saveAsAuthor vote
sdumitriu - (23:22): If you don't get enough votes, you should send a reminder mail
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:23): Ahh I thought it was just a matter of days. Sorry, I can remove it.
sdumitriu - (23:23): No, don't remove it
sdumitriu - (23:23): Just keep this in mind for the future
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:24): So should I send a reminder and see if I can get another vote?
sdumitriu - (23:24): Yes
sdumitriu - (23:24): vmassol: You should vote
sdumitriu - (23:24): IMO, It's an important API addition
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:24): This api stuff seems important to me I was surprised that it didn't get more attention.
vmassol - (23:25): yes, I'm late on lots of votes/discussions....
sdumitriu - (23:25): I can tell you what I do
sdumitriu - (23:25): If a vote is important, I leave it off until I can properly analyze it
sdumitriu - (23:25): And usually I leave it off too much :p
vmassol - (23:25): (I have a hard time following everything nowadays)
sdumitriu - (23:26): I don't vote unless I properly analyze the problem and all its implications
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:26): Of course that will lead to a lot of things going unvoted.
vmassol - (23:26): same for me
vmassol - (23:26): which is why I haven't answered yet
vmassol - (23:27): but I don't mind if the vote is passed if enough committers have spent the time to analyze it
vmassol - (23:28): CalebJamesDeLisl: that's why we have the 3 committers + 48 hours rules
vmassol - (23:28): 72 hours actually
vmassol - (23:28): (if I recall correctly)
sdumitriu - (23:28): Yes, 72
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:28): I don't vote on a lot of issues hoping that people will understand that as a standing +0
vmassol - (23:29): we also have the rule about lazy consensus
lucaa - (23:29): imho not voting means haven't looked at it, which is not equivalent to a +0
vmassol - (23:29): lucaa: yes but +0 without having thought about it is even worse probably
lucaa - (23:29): yes, I was meditating about the meaning of +0
lucaa - (23:30): it should be "read it, understood it and I don't mind if you do go ahead"
lucaa - (23:30): but read and understood are important
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:30): There are a lot of cases (UI) where I don't feel qualified to vote.
vmassol - (23:30): yes
lucaa - (23:31): CalebJamesDeLisl: I think on those kind of things it's better to remain silent...
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:32): So then silence has a double meaning.
vmassol - (23:32): sdumitriu: I'm getting a bit brain-tired these days, I need to take some holidays to regenerate a bit, I feel I'm working slowly right now
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:33): It seems to me that it's a problem that if nobody cares about a proposal, it is effectively blocked.
lucaa - (23:33): silence can mean either haven't read or read and didn't understand or read but I fear I don't see all the implications so I leave the experts answer
vmassol - (23:33): CalebJamesDeLisl: there's the lazy consensus
vmassol - (23:33): so votes are only for important stuff
lucaa - (23:33): what is lazy consensus?
vmassol - (23:33): and important stuff are well…. important and shouldn't be rushed if we don't agree
vmassol - (23:34): lucaa:
lucaa - (23:34): yeah, haven't read that in a while
vmassol - (23:34): "A vote is mandatory for voting in new committers or from removing committers. It's not necessary to send a vote when performing minor or even sometimes substantial modifications provided the author judges everyone would agree to them. This is called lazy consensus."
vmassol - (23:34): this means that you're free to commit stuff but any committer could ask you to revert
vmassol - (23:35): i(if it was something not voted)
vmassol - (23:35): I tried to mimick what is done on apache
lucaa - (23:35): well... yes, but lazy consensus doesn't mean ignoring a vote mail, it means not sending it in the first place
vmassol - (23:36):
vmassol - (23:36): "Consensus Gauging through Silence
vmassol - (23:36): An alternative to voting that is sometimes used to measure the acceptability of something is the concept of
vmassol - (23:36): Lazy consensus is simply an announcement of 'silence gives assent.' When someone wants to determine the sense of the community this way, it might do so with a mail message such as:
vmassol - (23:36): "The patch below fixes bug #8271847; if no-one objects within three days, I'll assume lazy consensus and commit it."
vmassol - (23:36): Lazy consensus cannot be applied to code changes when the policy is in effect.
vmassol - (23:36): "
lucaa - (23:37): now, re unanswered vote || proposal mails (which we get enough), the right way to go is to privately ping some people who could answer the mail, or pinging on this chat, ore reviving the mail vote saying why it's needed to make a choice
vmassol - (23:37): yes
lucaa - (23:38): lazy consensus is interesting, but it assumes a declaration of such. as I said above, once it's a vote, even unanswered, it's still a vote (imho)
lucaa - (23:39): it cannot change importance only because no one answers, it's either an important change or not
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:39): In the case of that API change, I made a proposal of the general idea on the 15th, and there was discussion then, following that on the 22, I proposed something very much like what I committed, then on the 14 I proposed almost exactly what is committed and on the 25th changed it to a vote.
lucaa - (23:39): lazy consensus is actually super cool. To keep in mind...
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:43): So to play the devil's advocate, lets suppose a vote is given and nobody is willing to give it +1 or -1, what happens?
vmassol - (23:44): you do lobbying first
lucaa - (23:44): first, the discussion above was about the general procedure
vmassol - (23:44): then if that fails you send a mail saying that if you don't get any answer in 1-2 days you'll commit anyway
vmassol - (23:44): that should get people to answer if they don't agree ;)
vmassol - (23:45): you may also
vmassol - (23:46): resend an email since if nobody answered it might be that your mail is too complex
vmassol - (23:46): you could split it into several smaller and simpler decisions
vmassol - (23:46): explain it differently
vmassol - (23:46): etc
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:46): I will try first the bothering people on irc, and then the "If you don't vote I will commit" method, IMO, 2 weeks is too long for a proposal like this to become a commit.
lucaa - (23:47): baseline is that you should try to make at least somebody else understand what you want to do and get them to have an opinion on it
vmassol - (23:47): it's not 2 weeks
vmassol - (23:47): it's 72 hours
vmassol - (23:47): + 1-2 days max
vmassol - (23:47): if it's longer it's because you haven't pushed it enough and you left it rot
vmassol - (23:48): (which can be ok if it's not urgent)
vmassol - (23:48): I have proposals I sent 2 years ago
vmassol - (23:48): and that are still not implemented
vmassol - (23:48): :)
vmassol - (23:49): ok bed time for me
vmassol - (23:49): nn see you tomorrow
lucaa - (23:49): nn vincent
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:50): Good night.
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:50): I'll send a message that this vote has not gotten enough votes and is still open for a couple more days.
lucaa - (23:50): I think you'd better ping people to disagree if they need to
sdumitriu - (23:51): CalebJamesDeLisl: What helps is splitting the mail in two parts: The short version and The long version
sdumitriu - (23:51): The short version is 2-3 lines and summarizes the vote
sdumitriu - (23:51): The long version explains in more detaile the context, the problem, the proposed solution, the implications
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:51): I thought I did that, short version is a list of api methods.
sdumitriu - (23:52): This way, lazy people can just read the 3 lines and decide if they agree on the general idea, or if they want to read the longer version
lucaa - (23:52): yes, I agree this vote was pretty normal... except that it's a bit complicated, to understand what exactly happens. In this case an example would have helpeed
sdumitriu - (23:57): Jira still down
CalebJamesDeLisl - (23:57): Interesting it doesn't explicitly say whether lazy consensus applies to voting.

Get Connected