Hi,
We need to decide how we want to document xwiki.org with regards to
project versions and skins. For example the screenshot and features
described can depend on 2 factors:
- the project version (XE version for ex)
- the skin used
Project versions
=
We have several choices:
1)
If you notifiy me of DB-changes in new releases i will test fix the mssql
mapping if necessary.
hel.
-
semantic-web.hel.at
h...@hel.at
--
View this message in context:
http://n2.nabble.com/XWiki-MSSQL-tp4168841p4168841.html
Sent from the XWiki- Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 12/15/09 9:35 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
We need to decide how we want to document xwiki.org with regards to
project versions and skins. For example the screenshot and features
described can depend on 2 factors:
- the project version (XE version for ex)
- the skin used
Project
Hi,
Another proposal: don't remove important pages that are moved.
For example imagine that we refactor the RSSFeeds page into a
Notifications page. I propose that we don't delete the RSSFeeds page
but instead add a redirect to the new page.
Example:
{{velocity}}
+1
Silvia
vmassol wrote:
Hi,
Another proposal: don't remove important pages that are moved.
For example imagine that we refactor the RSSFeeds page into a
Notifications page. I propose that we don't delete the RSSFeeds page
but instead add a redirect to the new page.
Example:
+1
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 09:52, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net wrote:
Hi,
Another proposal: don't remove important pages that are moved.
For example imagine that we refactor the RSSFeeds page into a
Notifications page. I propose that we don't delete the RSSFeeds page
but instead add a
On 12/15/09 9:52 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
Another proposal: don't remove important pages that are moved.
For example imagine that we refactor the RSSFeeds page into a
Notifications page. I propose that we don't delete the RSSFeeds page
but instead add a redirect to the new page.
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net wrote:
Hi,
Another proposal: don't remove important pages that are moved.
For example imagine that we refactor the RSSFeeds page into a
Notifications page. I propose that we don't delete the RSSFeeds page
but instead
On Dec 15, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Asiri Rathnayake wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net
wrote:
Hi,
Another proposal: don't remove important pages that are moved.
For example imagine that we refactor the RSSFeeds page into a
Notifications page. I
On 12/15/2009 09:52 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
Another proposal: don't remove important pages that are moved.
For example imagine that we refactor the RSSFeeds page into a
Notifications page. I propose that we don't delete the RSSFeeds page
but instead add a redirect to the new page.
+1
On 12/15/2009 10:52 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
Another proposal: don't remove important pages that are moved.
For example imagine that we refactor the RSSFeeds page into a
Notifications page. I propose that we don't delete the RSSFeeds page
but instead add a redirect to the new page.
+1
Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
Another proposal: don't remove important pages that are moved.
For example imagine that we refactor the RSSFeeds page into a
Notifications page. I propose that we don't delete the RSSFeeds page
but instead add a redirect to the new page.
Example:
Hi,
I'd like to propose a refactoring for org.xwiki.model.DocumentName/
AttachmentName.
There are currently 2 problems with the current implementation:
- DocumentName doesn't support nested spaces (we need that for the
future)
- We need to generalize the concept of resource names so that we
+1
Caleb
Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
Another proposal: don't remove important pages that are moved.
For example imagine that we refactor the RSSFeeds page into a
Notifications page. I propose that we don't delete the RSSFeeds page
but instead add a redirect to the new page.
Example:
Hi,
We should replace the Choose Editor panel by using the Action Menu also in
Edit Mode.
Please comment on this and select your favorite variant: A, B, C, D, E
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/ActionMenuEditImprovements#HEditImprovementsProposals
Thanks,
Caty
On Dec 15, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
Another proposal: don't remove important pages that are moved.
For example imagine that we refactor the RSSFeeds page into a
Notifications page. I propose that we don't delete the RSSFeeds page
but instead add a redirect to the
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Ecaterina Valica vali...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
We should replace the Choose Editor panel by using the Action Menu also
in
Edit Mode.
Please comment on this and select your favorite variant: A, B, C, D, E
Hi,
I like it a lot, my preference goes to variant D, I think it makes the
current editor more visible than the other proposals.
I find natural to look at the place where the edit menu was than to
look at the place where the watch feature was (C).
I think A is not enough but I'd be fine with A +
Hi Caty,
On Dec 15, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote:
Hi,
We should replace the Choose Editor panel by using the Action Menu
also in
Edit Mode.
Please comment on this and select your favorite variant: A, B, C, D, E
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Jean-Vincent Drean
jean-vinc...@drean.org wrote:
Hi,
I like it a lot, my preference goes to variant D, I think it makes the
current editor more visible than the other proposals.
I find natural to look at the place where the edit menu was than to
look at the
Hi Caty,
My vote goes for D and E, and yes it would be nice to have some confirmation
box but only when there are changes made to the content.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net wrote:
Hi Caty,
On Dec 15, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net wrote:
Hi everyone (devs and users),
While we have a clear governance for write access to our source
repository (http://dev.xwiki.org), we're missing a clear governance
for xwiki.org. The idea is to address mainly the
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Ecaterina Valica vali...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
We should replace the Choose Editor panel by using the Action Menu also
in
Edit Mode.
Please comment on this and select your favorite variant: A, B, C, D, E
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 15:40, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to propose a refactoring for org.xwiki.model.DocumentName/
AttachmentName.
There are currently 2 problems with the current implementation:
- DocumentName doesn't support nested spaces (we need that for the
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 09:35, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net wrote:
Hi,
We need to decide how we want to document xwiki.org with regards to
project versions and skins. For example the screenshot and features
described can depend on 2 factors:
- the project version (XE version for ex)
-
Hi Vincent,
It sounds pretty good to me.
There are a few items we need to make sure we implement right (making it clear
what's commercial and what's open on xwiki.org, the 'rules' for getting the
offer listed, etc), but those are matters of the actual implementation and not
the idea itself.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 19:02, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net wrote:
On Dec 15, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 15:40, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net
wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to propose a refactoring for org.xwiki.model.DocumentName/
AttachmentName.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 20:39, Thomas Mortagne
thomas.morta...@xwiki.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 19:02, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net wrote:
On Dec 15, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 15:40, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net
wrote:
Hi,
I'd like
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 15:44, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net wrote:
Hi everyone (devs and users),
While we have a clear governance for write access to our source
repository (http://dev.xwiki.org), we're missing a clear governance
for xwiki.org. The idea is to address mainly the following 2
Hello,
I don't know if pascal is me or someone else but I'm also one Pascal so I
answer ;)
Sorry for the long mail...
I agree with this kind of governance as long as XWiki.org keeps fully free
and brings the best and latest code with LGPL license. I agree that
companies contributing to XWiki
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 20:39, Thomas Mortagne
thomas.morta...@xwiki.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 19:02, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net wrote:
On Dec 15, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 15:40, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net
wrote:
Hi,
I'd like
Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
We need to decide how we want to document xwiki.org with regards to
project versions and skins. For example the screenshot and features
described can depend on 2 factors:
- the project version (XE version for ex)
- the skin used
Project versions
Hi,
Why not have the active editor displayed in the middle of the edit submenu
and keep the global navigation
- would be almost the same behavior as now.
- So D - with the active editor in the middle would be my choice :)
hel.
-
semantic-web.hel.at
h...@hel.at
--
View this message in
Ecaterina Valica wrote:
Hi,
We should replace the Choose Editor panel by using the Action Menu also in
Edit Mode.
Please comment on this and select your favorite variant: A, B, C, D, E
D looks great.
Thanks,
Marius
Hi,
Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi everyone (devs and users),
While we have a clear governance for write access to our source
repository (http://dev.xwiki.org), we're missing a clear governance
for xwiki.org. The idea is to address mainly the following 2 questions:
1) who owns it and thus
Hi Pascal,
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Pascal Voitot
pascal.voitot@gmail.comwrote:
Hello,
I don't know if pascal is me or someone else but I'm also one Pascal so I
answer ;)
Yes, I meant you :-)
Sorry for the long mail...
Thanks for the detailed feedback!
I agree with this
+1 for D
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 16:25, Ecaterina Valica vali...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
We should replace the Choose Editor panel by using the Action Menu also in
Edit Mode.
Please comment on this and select your favorite variant: A, B, C, D, E
As I have been looking for a job, I feel that I am biased toward XWikiSAS.
Trying to be as independent as possible, I am in favor of advertising on
xwiki.org as long as:
1. There is a detailed open standard which any company can try to meet.
2. That standard is published on xwiki.org and linked
Should there be a ResourceType.OBJECT?
If I were to redesign the core, I would make objects able to have child
objects. That way Document, Attachment, Space and even Wiki could extend Object.
It might be a lofty ideal but I think we ought to make our APIs so they
would be compatible if we were to
Hi devs,
Currently we have this behavior:
* simple click to select a macro
* simple click to toggle between collapsed and expanded state of a
previously selected macro
* double click to edit the macro properties
The problem is that the double click event consists, as its name
suggests, in two
Hi Caleb,
On Dec 16, 2009, at 1:46 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
Should there be a ResourceType.OBJECT?
Yes definitely. I haven't put everything in this proposal. But yes the
idea is to have OBJECT and PROPERTY too and possibly others too.
What's important to me in the proposal at this
41 matches
Mail list logo
