I would also keep the term "Developers". Not sure why we would change that name. XWiki is a development platform, we have users that are developers.
Thanks, Caty On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:37 PM Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > On 30/01/2019 09:05, Vincent Massol wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > No opinions ? > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > >> On 25 Jan 2019, at 09:31, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: > >> > >> Hi devs, > >> > >> Context > >> ======= > >> > >> It’s been since we’ve deviated from the original purpose of the Release > Notes by also adding developer-oriented release notes. > >> > >> The goal of the Release Notes was to **highlight** important novelties > for our **users**, because looking at the JIRA list is too technical > (otherwise we could simply use the Release feature of JIRA! :)). > >> > >> So you may ask why we do have a “Developer” Category in the RN app. > These were not for pure developers but for XWiki users who are more > advanced and can write scripts in wiki pages. And when it’s the case we > **must** add examples, otherwise, it’s completely useless. > >> > >> For example this morning I saw this RN added: > >> > https://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/ReleaseNotes/Data/XWiki/11.0/Change004/ > >> > >> This is typically something that has very little value to me: > >> * It’s for pure developers (java devs) > >> * It’s not understandable by anyone except the person who coded it or > participated to the dev mailing list discussion about it > >> * It doesn’t say more than what’s in the JIRA issue so what’s the point? > >> * There are no examples at all in it! > >> * Real developers can simply look at the reference documentation or can > read the JIRAs. We always link the JIRA issues in the RN anyway (it was for > this reason that we’re listing them). > >> * It takes time to write RN items and thus it needs to have high value > >> > >> Proposal > >> ======== > >> > >> * Go back to the original idea and only list developer RN items when > they are for scripting users and not APIs. For example, document some new > script service or some additions to existing script services. Of course > Groovy would allow you to call any API so being able to use it from Groovy > is not a good criteria. I’d say that the criteria should be whether the > Release Note Change is useful for Velocity users. > >> * Rename “Developers” into “Scripters” or or “Advanced Users” (any > better name?) > >> * Always put an example when writing a “developer” change and take the > time to explain properly what it’s about. > >> > >> WDYT? > > Actually reading the examples you give, I'm a bit mixed: I agreed that > for the first one "the PropertyDisplayType" an example might be given: > can be good to actually have the "example" box in the RN form. > > For the second one about legacy profile activated, actually I don't > really know what's the impact for the users, and if he could change > something about it. So I don't see how we could provide an example. > > So I have the feeling that the first one could be indeed adressed to > Scripters (and even there, it's not a new scripting API, they could only > use it in groovy scripts). And that the second one can be important for > some administrators, but not for Scripters on the contrary. > > I might be wrong here but "Scripters" does not fit IMO and trying to > find a new name might lead to create new categories actually. > To be a bit more constructive I'd say that maybe for those changes we > should not focus on a role but just say "Advanced changes". > > My 2 cents, > Simon > >> > >> Thanks > >> -Vincent > >> > > > > -- > Simon Urli > Software Engineer at XWiki SAS > simon.u...@xwiki.com > More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >