> On 12 Jun 2017, at 12:42, Eduard Moraru <enygma2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "XWiki Vanilla", because it`s the *standard flavor* :D Sounds so funny that > I kind of like it :) > > However, I`m not so sure about non-techinical users or how that goes with > other stuff that we already or might produce, since we don`t really have a > pattern on that. Fun proposal, though.
My POV: * The wikipedia page on “Vanilla” shows that the name is perfect from a technical POV. It really represents what we want. * I think most of our users are non-tech and wouldn’t understand it since I don’t think the “Vanilla” terminology is that common outside of tech circles So I agree that it’s a fun proposal but we’ll get users asking us frequently why we chose an ice-cream flavor for an XWiki flavor ;) Thus I’m also hesitating but I think I’m more -0 since “XWiki Vanilla" sounds more like a code name than a real name. I think that I still prefer “Standard” or “Default” ATM (with a small preference for “Standard” which has a bit more meaning than “Default” for me). Now if everyone else prefers “Vanilla”, I wouldn’t oppose it, as I also find it fun and to the point. Thanks -Vincent > Thanks, > Eduard > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Marta Girdea <marta.gir...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm jumping in a bit late, but I was just wondering if anyone considered >> "Vanilla" [1]. It was the absolute first thing that popped to my mind when >> I saw the discussion about naming the standard flavour. >> >> Just my 2 cents, >> Marta >> >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanilla_software >> >> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Denis and all, >>> >>>> On 10 Jun 2017, at 11:46, Denis Gervalle <d...@softec.lu> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> Sorry to jump in after an already long discussion since we are getting >>> close to a conclusion, so I just don’t want my intervention to cause more >>> fuzz than good. >>>> I am in accordance with most of what was said so far, but “Default” >>> looks to me a less valuable naming than “Standard”, it is not a strong >>> opinion, so I give my +1 to “Standard” and +0 to “Default”. I will use >>> “Standard" in the following, just to be clearer, but you can substitute >> it >>> with “Default” if you wish (you might notice further subtle differences, >> or >>> not). >>>> So, what I am not sure about now is why all proposals end with “XWiki >>> flavor” (and this is not really about the American spelling of flavour ! >>> :D). All flavours we gonna have surely will be XWiki ones, won’t it ? So >> if >>> we start with the “Standard XWiki Flavor”, I am afraid we are going to >> lead >>> a movement where everyone will name their flavour with that same suffix. >> Is >>> that our intention ? >>>> “XWiki Standard Flavor” would already carry a different meaning, since >>> it would say more “Standard flavour made by the XWiki team”. However, if >>> our intent was more to say this is a generic wiki flavour, using >> “Standard >>> Wiki Flavor” looks more in line with our intended meaning. And if our >>> meaning is more that this is just a generic flavour, ending with >> “Standard >>> Flavor” is probably simpler, clearer and better. >>>> WDYT ? >>> >>> I agree with you. >>> >>> I think we have 2 choices for the name that appears in the DW UI: >>> * “Standard”. We may not even need the “Flavor” suffix in the same way as >>> we don’t add an “Extension” suffix in the EM UI. IMO the DW UI for >> flavors >>> should indicate the author in the UI, something like ”Standard” and then >>> “developed by XWiki Development Team” or “developed by XWiki SAS” or >>> “developed by Denis Gervalle”. >>> * "XWiki Standard” or “XWiki Standard Flavor” to indicate it’s the one >>> made by the XWiki open source dev team. So that could be the full name >> but >>> the name we display in the DW UI could simply be “Standard Flavor” and >> then >>> “developed by XWiki Development Team”, etc. >>> >>> If we want to use the term “Wiki” then it could come as a replacement for >>> the “Standard” term, to mention that it’s a generic wiki flavor, as >> opposed >>> to an intranet flavor, a knowledge base flavor, etc. But I agree that >> “Wiki >>> Flavor” is a good contender (and one that Ludovic mentioned too, he even >>> mentioned Structured Wiki Flavor). I’d be +0 on “Wiki Flavor”. “Standard >>> Wiki Flavor” is also possible and hints that there can be other generic >>> Wiki flavors that are not standard. So I’m also +0 for it. >>> >>> Now outside of the DW UI, the full name of the flavors done by the XWiki >>> Dev Team could be prefixed with XWiki as in “the XWiki Standard Flavor” >> (or >>> “XWiki Demo Flavor”). Other companies or individuals would name is with >>> their identity, such as “the <my company> Procedure Flavor”. >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >>> >>>> -- >>>> Denis Gervalle >>>> SOFTEC sa - CEO >>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 16:48, Thomas Mortagne < >> thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> >>> wrote: >>>> So here is the current situation >>>> >>>> = Proposition which don't annoy people enough to get a veto >>>> >>>> * "Default XWiki Flavor" (+3) >>>> * "Standard XWiki Flavor" (+2) >>>> >>>> = Someone gave a veto on those >>>> >>>> * "Base XWiki Flavor" >>>> * "Classic XWiki Flavor" (good success for this one until it hits Edy >>>> and Vincent) >>>> * "Raw XWiki Flavor" >>>> * "Starter XWiki Flavor" >>>> * "XWiki Flavor” >>>> * "Generic XWiki Flavor" >>>> >>>> Anyone want to change his votes ? >>>> >>>> I don't really have a preference between "Default" and "Standard". >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> >>> wrote: >>>>> So I’ve read this thread and here’s my POV: >>>>> >>>>> * "Base XWiki Flavor” -1 (same reason as Thomas) >>>>> * “Classic XWiki Flavor” -1 (same reason as Edy, it means there’s a >> non >>> classic and *better* one and we don’t have one so it doesn’t make sense) >>>>> * “Raw XWiki Flavor” -1 (not enough meaning IMO and a bit deprecatory) >>>>> * “Starter XWiki Flavor” -1 (would mean there’s another flavor which >>> isn’t the case) >>>>> * "Default XWiki Flavor” +1 >>>>> * "Generic XWiki Flavor” +1 >>>>> * “Standard XWiki Flavor” +1 (makes the most sense IMO) >>>>> * "XWiki Flavor”. Here it’s hard to understand that “XWiki” actually >>> means “developed by the XWiki project” and it would work only if other >>> flavors don’t have “XWiki” in the name. This is why I’m -1 ATM for it. >> IMO >>> it’s not easy enough to differentiate and understand what it means >> compared >>> to other listed flavors such “Procedure Flavor” from XWiki SAS or “Demo >>> Flavor” from contrib. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> -Vincent >>>>> >>>>>> On 24 May 2017, at 11:51, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com >>> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi devs, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm getting closer to finish with the hard work around new platform >>>>>> flavor which is going to replace XE. >>>>>> >>>>>> Need to decide what user will see in the Flavor picker when installed >>> XWiki now. >>>>>> >>>>>> As a reminder we decided that this would be a generic flavor, not >> tied >>>>>> to any specific use case (so forget about "Knwonledge Base Flavor" >>>>>> :)). >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is a few ideas gathered in previous mails: >>>>>> * "XWiki Flavor" >>>>>> * "Default XWiki Flavor" >>>>>> * "Generic XWiki Flavor" >>>>>> * "Base XWiki Flavor" >>>>>> >>>>>> "Generic" is probably a way too technical term. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Base" would be misleading IMO since it's not really a base flavor. >>>>>> Its primary goal is not to be used as a dependency (of course it's >>>>>> fine to have it as dependency if you just want to add pre installed >>>>>> extensions to the default flavor). It's a -1 for me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Frankly I would simply go for "XWiki Flavor". I know, it's not going >>>>>> to be the only flavor for XWiki but it's obvious when you actually >> see >>>>>> severals of those in the picker anyway and I find it nicer than >>>>>> "Default XWiki Flavor" which basically means the same thing since the >>>>>> XWiki core project does not plan to provide any other flavor. I'm >> also >>>>>> fine with "Default XWiki Favor" if others think it's a better name. >>>>>> >>>>>> WDYT ? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thomas Mortagne >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thomas Mortagne >>> >>> >>
