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
>

Reply via email to