Re: [Gallery3] Wrapping up 3.0.5

Added comments to the old modules.  After Dariush's edits later this
eve, we should be all done with the obsolete modules thread.  Thanks,
guys!

Take care,
Shad

On 22 February 2013 18:04, Bharat Mediratta <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Good idea, Shad.  I've edited the release story to include that part.  Go
> ahead and post in the forum topics.
>
> Dariush, can you update gallerymodules.com with Shad's text?
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Shad Laws <shad-xpYdmXCiSuZWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> With the warning messages in place and the doc page written (and revised -
>> thanks, floridave!), I thought I'd take a stab at the short messages to
>> include elsewhere.
>>
>> -----
>> - Download page for v3.0.5 (e.g. http://galleryproject.org/gallery_3_0_5)
>> - Forum post for v3.0.5 (e.g.
>> http://galleryproject.org/gallery_3.0.5_feedback)
>>
>> Obsolete Modules
>>
>> Upgrades to Gallery v3.0.5 have made the following modules obsolete:
>> Digibug, NoFFmpeg, VideoDimensions, and Videos.  If you're currently using
>> these modules, we recommend that you deactivate them. For more information,
>> please see the documentation page at
>> http://codex.galleryproject.org/Gallery3:User_guide:Obsolete_modules.
>>
>> -----
>> - Forum posts for the obsolete modules
>> - Documentation pages for the obsolete modules
>>
>> Update: recent upgrades to Gallery have made this module obsolete.  If
>> you're currently using it, we recommend that you deactivate it. For more
>> information, please see the documentation page at
>> http://codex.galleryproject.org/Gallery3:User_guide:Obsolete_modules.
>>
>> -----
>> - Gallerymodules.com
>>
>> Ideally, rather than making a site-wide message, it'd be great to prepend
>> the descriptions of the modules in question to include:
>>
>> <b>(Obsolete - see documentation here)</b>
>>
>> With an href on "here" to the doc page at
>> http://codex.galleryproject.org/Gallery3:User_guide:Obsolete_modules.
>> Dariush - would this be easy to include?
>>
>>
>> Feedback?  Other thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Shad
>>
>>
>> On 21 February 2013 12:49, Shad Laws <shad-xpYdmXCiSuZWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Now that Bharat and I have gotten the warnings pulled into the code, I
>>> took a stab at making the doc page:
>>> http://codex.galleryproject.org/Gallery3:User_guide:Obsolete_modules
>>>
>>> Thoughts?  Feel free to edit it directly if you like...
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Shad
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 February 2013 15:56, Shad Laws <shad-xpYdmXCiSuZWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> Following up on this, I made this pull request:
>>>> https://github.com/gallery/gallery3/pull/155
>>>>
>>>> It adds a warning message to admin/dashboard, admin/modules, and
>>>> upgrader.  My goal was to inform the user and let them do what they want
>>>> without annoying them (persistent site status warnings) or prohibiting them
>>>> (forcibly disallowing and/or deactivating things).
>>>>
>>>> The "obsolescence check" itself looks at the list of active modules
>>>> *and* their version numbers.  This leaves open the possibility of someone
>>>> completely overhauling a previously-obsolete module, upping the version
>>>> number, and having it work without issue.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Take care,
>>>> Shad
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 20 February 2013 09:15, Shad Laws <shad-xpYdmXCiSuZWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey gang,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the feedback!  Based on that and a bit more thinking on my
>>>>> end, I *think* I have a clearer idea of how to do this.  Any and all
>>>>> feedback welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Motivations:
>>>>> - If we're obsoleting a bunch of modules, it'd be nice to give a little
>>>>> explanation.  At the same time, it'd be nice not to muddy up release
>>>>> announcements with a bunch of text that only affects people who use
>>>>> now-obsolete modules.
>>>>> - While this is the first occurrence of purposefully obsoleting
>>>>> modules, it may not be the last.
>>>>> - This solution should probably be applied to the digibug module, too,
>>>>> as the company no longer exists :-(.
>>>>>
>>>>> Solution:
>>>>> - Add a new doc page, for example here:
>>>>> http://codex.galleryproject.org/Gallery3:User_guide:Obsolete_modules.  Here
>>>>> we have a short intro blurb, then a stanza for each module we've obsoleted
>>>>> with a bit of explanation, alternatives, etc.  This page can grow in the
>>>>> future if necessary.
>>>>> - Add short messages that point to the doc page in: v3.0.5 download
>>>>> page, v3.0.5 forum post, gallerymodules.com, and doc pages and forum posts
>>>>> for the modules themselves.
>>>>> - Add a routine to Gallery's core that checks active modules against a
>>>>> hard-coded list to alert the admin, which is called by: upgrader,
>>>>> admin/modules, and admin/dashboard.  To keep this simple and relatively
>>>>> unobtrusive, we can skip the site message part (as Chad pointed out, it's
>>>>> not as high-impact anyway).  The hard-coded list can grow with future
>>>>> Gallery releases if necessary, too.
>>>>> - Consider setting up a mailing list to send due diligence in the
>>>>> future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Take care,
>>>>> Shad
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> gallery-devel <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20 February 2013 02:56, Chad Kieffer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Welcome, Shad, and thanks for all the work you've put into Gallery,
>>>>>> especially on the jQuery update! I agree with focusing on jQuery 1.9 instead
>>>>>> of putting effort into the contributed module front.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd add that the type of notice proposed for codex and forum pages be
>>>>>> added prominently to the downloads page. A message on the upgrader page in
>>>>>> G3 would have the most visibility, a site status message wouldn't hurt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The creation of an email list which includes contributed module
>>>>>> developers (we don't have one, right?) might allow us to send due diligence
>>>>>> notices for these types of changes in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Chad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 19, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Shad Laws wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just subscribed to the gallery-devel list.  Hello, everyone!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that spending tons of time policing contributed modules
>>>>>> instead of wrapping up the jQuery 1.9 update doesn't make much sense.  At
>>>>>> the same time, if we do nothing, people currently using videos will upgrade
>>>>>> their core to v3.0.5 and never realize that they're still running hacked
>>>>>> v3.0.1 code for file_proxy and Item_Model, which imho also sounds like a
>>>>>> bad/dangerous idea.  My thoughts are to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - add a notice about the deprecation to the release notes and forum
>>>>>> post for v3.0.5 (I can draft this up - when would you need it by?)
>>>>>> - edit the codex module pages and forum posts for the deprecated
>>>>>> modules and point to the notice above
>>>>>> - (optional) add a bit to the core code that, upon upgrade, checks for
>>>>>> the old modules and throws up a site message with a warning and a link to
>>>>>> the notice above
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my opinion, editing the contributed modules themselves wouldn't
>>>>>> have much of an impact, as the use case I imagine is where the user upgrades
>>>>>> the core of their existing installation without touching their other
>>>>>> modules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Shad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19 February 2013 19:38, Bharat Mediratta <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cc'ing gallery-devel for general interest.  We should be having more
>>>>>>> conversations here, imo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For those on -devel: Shad has done a lot of heavy lifting in the
>>>>>>> 3.0.5 release which is just about ready to go.  His work fixes up movie
>>>>>>> support considerably and obsoletes several contrib modules which were trying
>>>>>>> to work around these issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the short answer is - we don't do anything.  Reasoning:
>>>>>>> - We really do care about our users having a nice experience
>>>>>>> - BUT we have limited time and have to care about the core
>>>>>>> functionality
>>>>>>> - if we spend our time policing -contrib modules it slows down
>>>>>>> release velocity
>>>>>>> - therefore we must focus on the things that only we can do and let
>>>>>>> the community do the rest
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There will be some breakage, the community will react and fix the
>>>>>>> issues and move on.  In the meantime, we'll have the time to focus on 3.0.6
>>>>>>> and the jQuery upgrade which is a far more impactful use of our time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's my rationale for why I'm not doing anything.  If you want to
>>>>>>> go hack up a couple of one-liners into those modules to check for a specific
>>>>>>> version of the G3 core and error out, etc - I'll be happy to field the pull
>>>>>>> requests :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Bharat
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Shad Laws <shad-xpYdmXCiSuZWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey Bharat,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One last thought occurs to me re: 3.0.5 - how should we handle
>>>>>>>> deprecating the old, movie-related contributed modules?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> videos
>>>>>>>> - functionality: replaced by core core plus my new contributed
>>>>>>>> "movie_tools" module
>>>>>>>> - hack level: very high; replaces file_proxy controller, item model,
>>>>>>>> and movieplayer view (doesn't even use MY_ to extend)
>>>>>>>> - result of continued use: possibly dangerous or destructive
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> noffmpeg
>>>>>>>> - functionality: replaced by core code
>>>>>>>> - hack level: moderate; replaces movie helper (like videos, doesn't
>>>>>>>> use MY_ to extend)
>>>>>>>> - result of continued use: possibly dangerous, although less likely
>>>>>>>> than videos
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> videothumb
>>>>>>>> - functionality: not replaced, but doesn't take advantage of new API
>>>>>>>> changes (and "movie_tools" will do the same job using the new API)
>>>>>>>> - hack level: mild; gently uses its own controller and events, but
>>>>>>>> bypasses movie::extract_frame and all of its new enhancements
>>>>>>>> - result of continued use: can generate incorrect thumbs since it
>>>>>>>> bypasses movie::extract_frame and its recent DAR fixes, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> videodimensions
>>>>>>>> - functionality: not replaced, but no longer necessary since movie
>>>>>>>> player is now auto-resized
>>>>>>>> - hack level: very low; gently uses its own controller and events
>>>>>>>> - result of continued use: possible mild data corruption, as users
>>>>>>>> can write directly to the width and height entries of a movie without sanity
>>>>>>>> checks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>>>> Shad
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
>> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
>> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
>> __[ g a l l e r y - d e v e l ]_________________________
>>
>> [ list info/archive --> http://gallery.sf.net/lists.php ]
>> [ gallery info/FAQ/download --> http://gallery.sf.net ]
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
__[ g a l l e r y - d e v e l ]_________________________

[ list info/archive --> http://gallery.sf.net/lists.php ]
[ gallery info/FAQ/download --> http://gallery.sf.net ]