create new tag
, view all tags

Minutes of Edinburgh Release Meeting, 13 Nov 2006

TOC and Agenda

Logistics, Participants, IRC log

1. Review Previous Action Items

  • Peter and Kenneth to provide feedback for Sam on PostDakarTrackingAndDiscussion
    • Peter has made a stab at it. Kenneth to review and enhance
  • Kenneth to make short description of the requirements for the script to create the zips with only the changed files.
  • Kwang will use the above and make a stab on making the script.
  • DONE Arthur: Create the TWikiReleaseNotes04x01
  • DONE Arthur: Add note about deprecation of settings in form fields to release notes TWikiReleaseNotes04x01
    • Note that we already took the documentation of the "S" attribute out of TWikiForms for Dakar. I honestly think this feature has been deprecated already before Dakar, and now is the time to finally give it the death stroke. TW
    • Bugs:Item2302 is the living proof that we did not announce the deprecation of the feature to our users. So the decision taken today was to deprecate by the book. First announce. And after say one year remove the code in a major or minor release. Never in patch release. Thanks for actioning the comment adding so fast. KJL
  • DONE Thomas. Add note about deprecation of settings in form fields to release notes in the code.
  • Kenneth builds a quick and non-unit-test-passing beta to get testing started outside pseudo-install.
    • Status per 06 Nov 2006. Beta cannot be released because of Bugs:Item3098 which is a security issue.
  • DONE Kenneth: Add the feature freeze text to WhatIsIn04x01
  • DONE Kenneth: New ideas to TWikiFeature04x02 (14 day rule suspended)
  • DONE Kenneth: Announce the feature freeze and suspension of 14 day rule on twiki-dev

2. Review Proposed Features of TWiki 4.1

  • Desired outcome: Clarify open question and decide on inclusion/exclusion of features

  • Current status can be seen in WhatIsIn04x01.
  • DONE TemplatePathIsCounterintuitive - Thomas W. to give overview of what has been implemented to we can give the feedback requested
  • TemplateAffectsTextarea
    • Meeting participants agreed that we do not like the %TEXTSTART% syntax as proposed.
    • Sven D adds a proposal to meet Thomas actual need with existing features.
    • Thomas should evaluate and see if this meets his need.
    • Kenneth proposed STARTRENDER - STOPRENDER as simpler alternative
      • That would work fine. I am not hung up on the syntax -- TW
    • All need to give Thomas more feedback.
  • TWikiJavaScriptRefactoring - Accepted.
  • DocumentedDefaultParameterValuesForInclude - is rejected. Does not belong in core as proposed. And new proposal is for 4.2 in this case because of lack of time before 4.1 release.
  • PluginHandlerForContentMove - Peter argued that this is still needed. Vote: 5 for the additional handler, 0 against.

3. TWiki 4.1 Release Timing

  • Desired outcome: Set tentative date of TWiki 4.1 Release

  • FYI, decision at previous meeting, EdinburghReleaseMeeting2006x10x30:
    • Feature freeze starting from 30 Oct 2006 (NOW at release meeting)
    • Add the feature freeze text to WhatIsIn04x01 (Kenneth does)
    • New ideas to TWikiFeature04x02 (Kenneth creates this topic)
    • The 14 day auto accept rule is suspended until 4.1 is released to give focus on bug fixing.
    • Code freeze about one week after beta - then only bug fixes allowed
    • RC1 2 weeks after beta

Action Items


Back to: EdinburghRelease

Comments / Feedback

I must say I am somewhat annoyed by the discussion re TemplateAffectsTextarea, as

  1. I have documented a use case that is widely used in my TWikiApplications but not possible in todays TWiki
  2. I have implemented an enhancement, consisting of less than 10 lines of code that makes this use case possible
  3. This implementation uses a mechanism that is used in other areas of TWiki templates (e.g.,, the search templates)
  4. The enhancement has no performance impact when not used
  5. No alternative suggestion has been forthcoming and the only discussion has been "I don't understand templates so I don't like your proposal"

Please understand that you are standing in the way of supporting an important use case for TWiki applications.

-- ThomasWeigert - 14 Nov 2006

On TemplatePathIsCounterintuitive, please realize that I implemented a suggestion by Martin discussed in detail at this topic, only after Ken told me to go ahead as it was basically agreed. I did that as a service, not because I needed that feature.

I am not sure what else I can explain about this feature that is not already stated in the topic.

-- ThomasWeigert - 14 Nov 2006

Thomas, your insistence that there is no alternative proposal is incorrect. The reason that I included the IRC log, was because I didn't manage to communicate it clearly last night, and the log shows that (it was after all 18 hours after i'd woken up). I've re-phrased it, but i suspect you'll need to play with it a little to be sure that it indeed does more than your solution.

-- SvenDowideit - 14 Nov 2006

Yes, I saw your proposal. But by "alternative proposal" I meant a proposal that actually works.

-- ThomasWeigert - 14 Nov 2006

Thomas - on TemplatePathIsCounterintuitive YOU asked for feedback from the other developers on the implementation. And yesterday we had a problem finding the actual SVN checkins. Bugs:Item2907 has only one checkin 11941 and it does not contain your changes. It is only a unit test update. The others wanted to look at your implenmentation and give you the feedback that you requested. I did not sense any resistance against the proposal as such. We are passed that point. It is important that there is a good traceability between code, bugs items and Codev and this shows why.

-- KennethLavrsen - 14 Nov 2006

Ken, so sorry. I have not checked the code so far, as there was no go-ahead signal yet. I can check it in or attach the diffs, whichever is preferred.

-- ThomasWeigert - 14 Nov 2006

In DocumentedDefaultParameterValuesForInclude Ken writes "But it shows that if people propose something they should also spend the two hour showing up at a release meeting defending it." May I point out that it is not so easy to join that meeting as I was not able to find any documentation of how to. Is it a teleconference? I get the feeling that it is some kind of netmeeting, as there is some mention of "IRC". But what is that? How does one join? I think that if it is essential for proposals to be "defended" in this meeting, it should be clearly documented on how one joins such meeting.

-- ThomasWeigert - 16 Nov 2006

One more comment. I read through the release meeting log. From the discussion on TemplatePathIsCounterintuitive it is clear that (other than Ken) no participant has read the topic, as the questions being asked were very clearly answered at the bottom of the topic: User level doco summary, test cases enhanced and run, code ready to checkin (I have since added more detail and commented code to the topic).

I know everybody is busy but it is disappointing that when somebody volunteers to wrap up some request by the community (not my own concern) that person is entitled to at least have one's proposal read so that a sensible discussion can pursue.

I don't mind if that proposal is rejects (albeit I think that it is in improvement). But I do think that proper preparation would be polite.

-- ThomasWeigert - 16 Nov 2006

Another comment re the IRC log: "which makes me somewhat puzzled by his sudden needs" (Sven). I have been using the extension in TemplateAffectsTextarea over half a year in our installation. So this is not so sudden, but I wanted to have enough experience before I raised it as a suggestion.

I am confident that any solution will be similar (other than changing how TWiki::UI::View::view works) and am looking forward to Sven showing me wrong.

Also, this is not a need specific to SectionalEditPlugin, but a generic problem for topic specific templates, as the use case in TemplateAffectsTextarea demonstrates.

-- ThomasWeigert - 16 Nov 2006

On more comment on the IRC log: There is a discussion on getting rid of the text area in the bugs web. I have submitted a suggestion when this was first started and then a bug a while ago to use the topic specific templates instead. I can implement, if you want, as I use this mechanism in many places. Using CSS to hide the text area is a crazy way of going about this.

-- ThomasWeigert - 16 Nov 2006

yes, however, you may recal that topic specific templates are a dakar feature, and I implemented this Bugs system for Bejing, and then it was upgraded to Cairo. so CSS was the stopgap. I'm still shocked no-one's implemented the topic templates for it.

proove you wrong? I'm sorry, i did not realise we were competing here, so i suggested an avenue that should either produce results, or would result in a similarly small fix to yours, without requiring new markup - ie new, and not often used code.

sudden need - yeah, its pretty sudden, in that no-one else has found it necessary before, and now you're pushing it as though its required by everyone

PLEASE: understand that my biggest gripe is the constant pushing to add new syntax, and worse, code paths that are not highly common. TWiki contains too much code, and too may cases (and exceptional cases) for that code to test well. So adding more code, without it being desperatly needed in the main use case.

-- SvenDowideit - 16 Nov 2006

Re "sudden need": I believe it is part of the TWiki mission to be a web application development platform. I have been pushing this part of the mission for a long time, please see TWikiWhatWillYouBeWhenYouGrowUp. Maybe I am pushing the envelope a little more in this area than others who are content with the White Board as the single application. I believe that this aspect of twiki is what distinguishes it from other wikis and we need to make that aspect as good as it can be, but at least, to support minimal needs.

Re "prove you wrong": I am sorry, but I do think it would be kind to provide a demonstration that it is possible to support my use case without a line of code as you had claimed in the IRC or to accept the provided solution (module syntax change that satisfies Ken). I have analyzed the code and presented the most efficient (performance-wise) and simplest solution to my use case which is consistent with the rest of TWiki templates. I'd be glad to use a better solution. But I need a solution. I don't think I am asking for something outside of the TWikiMission.

-- ThomasWeigert - 16 Nov 2006

Thomas, from my testing, it seems that using TML variables in templates is fully capable of giving you the functionality that you need (except for TOC). Thus it seems to me that the added code, and added syntax, has its root cause only in a problem in the coding of TOC.

You are asking for something outside the TWikiMission, if the general case of it can be done in a simpler, or better yet, can already be done with the existing syntax. In this case, everything (ok, i only tested some) but TOC works, suggestig coding work is needed in ToC?

-- SvenDowideit - 16 Nov 2006

So sorry, but I do not share your diagnosis. All tags which require access to the topic text for them to do their work are affected. Many plugin variables are of that nature (for example SectionalEditPlugin, but any other variable that needs to analyze the full topic to yield its result). %TOC% is an example from core.

I'd love to see where in the TWikiMission it says that supporting WebApplications is outside of the mission.

I understand that if there are two ways of accomplishing something and one way has less impact on the code than the other, obviously we would use the one having lesser impact.

However, in our particular case, changing %TOC% would be the wrong thing to do, as it would not address the broader problem but just solve the problem specific to the table of content and leave all other tags that need this support unsupported

-- ThomasWeigert - 16 Nov 2006

Sidenote: TWikiApplications are an integral part of the TWiki project, and is one of the main value propositions. So it is a good thing to enhance TWiki to be a better application platform, with consistency, compatibility and performance in mind.

Personal sidenote: I believe the TWiki community can work together more effectively if members use "I" messages more than "you" messages.

-- PeterThoeny - 16 Nov 2006

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r18 < r17 < r16 < r15 < r14 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r18 - 2006-11-17 - PeterThoeny
  • Learn about TWiki  
  • Download TWiki
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by Perl Hosted by OICcam.com Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback. Ask community in the support forum.
Copyright © 1999-2018 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.