Heiya,
this is probably a question directly for Tom. :)
What about the 2.0.0 release? Officially the latest release is 1.2.0 but in the meantime more and more wikis are running master of Foreground which is 2.0.0 and soon there will be more of them than for the official release (stats by WikiApiary).
I guess it will be cool to get 2.0.0 officially off the ground.
Cheers Karsten
Yes we do need to release 2.0. There are a few major differences between version 1.2 and 2.0.
* Some of the line spacing is a little bit taller. * There's a different method to call tabs * The new method to call tabs requires HTML that is not allowed in wiki markup. I did finally figure out the best use of the obcache to change the content of the page to allow the mark up if you switch the feature on.
v2.0 would definitely not be backwards compatible with v1.2 in wiki markup if someone is using tabs. Any pages that use tabs would definitely have to change their mark up and actually the way they display is a little different too.
v2.0 is actually downloaded from the development branch with version 1.2 on the master branch. All that needs to be done would be create a v1.2 branch for patches (if desired), make the final fixes for obcache and then merge development into master and release.
Tom
On Apr 16, 2017, at 10:13 AM, [[kgh]] mediawiki@kghoffmeyer.de wrote:
Heiya,
this is probably a question directly for Tom. :)
What about the 2.0.0 release? Officially the latest release is 1.2.0 but in the meantime more and more wikis are running master of Foreground which is 2.0.0 and soon there will be more of them than for the official release (stats by WikiApiary).
I guess it will be cool to get 2.0.0 officially off the ground.
Cheers Karsten
Foreground mailing list Foreground@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foreground
I've been watching how upgrades are handled in the MediaWiki world for a few years and I think we can all do better than we have been.
While going to 2.0 is a big help, could we put in a hook and ask people upgrading to run update.php?
In the hook, we could check for the use of tabs and make sure that it is compatible with Foreground 2.0.
Alternatively, we could set check to see (via a flag in the DB?) if this is the first time the 2.0 version has been run and show a notice (to admins only?) of changes that need to be made.
I haven't yet looked at the differences, so I'm not sure how feasible this is, but it would help
I'm not tied to any of these ideas, of course. I just want to make the use of the software better for the end user.
Thanks,
Mark.
Mark A. Hershberger NicheWork LLC 717-271-1084
----- On Apr 17, 2017, at 8:23 AM, Tom tom@hutch4.us wrote:
Yes we do need to release 2.0. There are a few major differences between version 1.2 and 2.0.
- Some of the line spacing is a little bit taller.
- There's a different method to call tabs
- The new method to call tabs requires HTML that is not allowed in wiki markup.
I did finally figure out the best use of the obcache to change the content of the page to allow the mark up if you switch the feature on.
v2.0 would definitely not be backwards compatible with v1.2 in wiki markup if someone is using tabs. Any pages that use tabs would definitely have to change their mark up and actually the way they display is a little different too.
v2.0 is actually downloaded from the development branch with version 1.2 on the master branch. All that needs to be done would be create a v1.2 branch for patches (if desired), make the final fixes for obcache and then merge development into master and release.
Tom
On Apr 16, 2017, at 10:13 AM, [[kgh]] mediawiki@kghoffmeyer.de wrote:
Heiya,
this is probably a question directly for Tom. :)
What about the 2.0.0 release? Officially the latest release is 1.2.0 but in the meantime more and more wikis are running master of Foreground which is 2.0.0 and soon there will be more of them than for the official release (stats by WikiApiary).
I guess it will be cool to get 2.0.0 officially off the ground.
Cheers Karsten
Foreground mailing list Foreground@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foreground
Foreground mailing list Foreground@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foreground
Hi Mark
Sounds like a great idea but the changes wouldn't have a method to check for tabs. Anyone could use tabs anywhere on any page without limitations.
Foundation 4 used <section> tags with classes to build the tabs.[0] Foundation 5 (v2.0's build) uses a combination of <ul>, <li> and <a href=""> to make tabs. [1] <ul> and <li> aren't an issue. It is the <a> tags which are sanitized. For v2.0, when the tabs feature is enabled the sanitizer used to strip out <a> tags is reversed and the output makes the <a> tag active again.
Because of the change an admin would have to go to any page they are using tabs on and update the wiki markup to use <ul>, <li> and <a> tags. Disappointed in the way Zurb changed this from 4. At least they did keep the same code valid from Foundation 5 to Foundation 6. Unfortunately, this doesn't help us.
Tom
[0] http://foundation.zurb.com/sites/docs/v/4.3.2/components/section.html [1] http://foundation.zurb.com/sites/docs/v/5.5.3/components/tabs.html
-----Original Message----- From: Foreground [mailto:foreground-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Hershberger Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 11:05 AM To: Discussion about the Mediawiki skin Foreground (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Foreground) <foreground@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Foreground] Foreground 2.0.0?
I've been watching how upgrades are handled in the MediaWiki world for a few years and I think we can all do better than we have been.
While going to 2.0 is a big help, could we put in a hook and ask people upgrading to run update.php?
In the hook, we could check for the use of tabs and make sure that it is compatible with Foreground 2.0.
Alternatively, we could set check to see (via a flag in the DB?) if this is the first time the 2.0 version has been run and show a notice (to admins only?) of changes that need to be made.
I haven't yet looked at the differences, so I'm not sure how feasible this is, but it would help
I'm not tied to any of these ideas, of course. I just want to make the use of the software better for the end user.
Thanks,
Mark.
Mark A. Hershberger NicheWork LLC 717-271-1084
Thanks Tom for all the information on the upcoming changes for version 2.0.0 and I think I should have already used the unreleased 2.x branch version. I will be happy to have it around in production.
So far I only used 1.x which does not really play with Chrome while 2.x is equally good in Firefox and Chrome.
The most troubling thing however is that I more or less heavily adapted the CSS of the sites using foreground and the breakage here is pretty massive (beyond recognition - I thought I was accessing a different website which is having many worries). I had to delete practically all adaptions and start over again. In comparison the tabs appear to be of no concern.
I think checks like the ones Mark is proposing should focus on changes in configuration parameters and their settings. Everything on the wiki itself appears hard to pick to me. Here we should rely on some kind of quality documentation and migration guides.
Cheers Karsten
Am 18.04.2017 um 04:00 schrieb Tom Hutchison:
Hi Mark
Sounds like a great idea but the changes wouldn't have a method to check for tabs. Anyone could use tabs anywhere on any page without limitations.
Foundation 4 used <section> tags with classes to build the tabs.[0] Foundation 5 (v2.0's build) uses a combination of <ul>, <li> and <a href=""> to make tabs. [1] <ul> and <li> aren't an issue. It is the <a> tags which are sanitized. For v2.0, when the tabs feature is enabled the sanitizer used to strip out <a> tags is reversed and the output makes the <a> tag active again.
Because of the change an admin would have to go to any page they are using tabs on and update the wiki markup to use <ul>, <li> and <a> tags. Disappointed in the way Zurb changed this from 4. At least they did keep the same code valid from Foundation 5 to Foundation 6. Unfortunately, this doesn't help us.
Tom
[0] http://foundation.zurb.com/sites/docs/v/4.3.2/components/section.html [1] http://foundation.zurb.com/sites/docs/v/5.5.3/components/tabs.html
-----Original Message----- From: Foreground [mailto:foreground-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Hershberger Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 11:05 AM To: Discussion about the Mediawiki skin Foreground (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Foreground) <foreground@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Foreground] Foreground 2.0.0?
I've been watching how upgrades are handled in the MediaWiki world for a few years and I think we can all do better than we have been.
While going to 2.0 is a big help, could we put in a hook and ask people upgrading to run update.php?
In the hook, we could check for the use of tabs and make sure that it is compatible with Foreground 2.0.
Alternatively, we could set check to see (via a flag in the DB?) if this is the first time the 2.0 version has been run and show a notice (to admins only?) of changes that need to be made.
I haven't yet looked at the differences, so I'm not sure how feasible this is, but it would help
I'm not tied to any of these ideas, of course. I just want to make the use of the software better for the end user.
Thanks,
Mark.
Mark A. Hershberger NicheWork LLC 717-271-1084
Foreground mailing list Foreground@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foreground
The most troubling thing however is that I more or less heavily adapted the CSS of the sites using foreground and the breakage here is pretty massive (beyond recognition - I thought I was accessing a different website which is having many worries).
Lol, but I know it's not funny! There are some changes in the navbar and the styling of it. There must be code changes to CSS if someone wants to maintain the same look. The drop-down menu heights are taller and the selectors for colors are a little different.
It's had me thinking the past couple of days if we should release a completely new skin called ForegroundV2. This way someone could install it turn it on and see the differences. It would be a bit of a pain trying to maintain two versions so I hope just good documentation can solve this.
There are definitely some great benefits to Foundation 5. Medium screen class, native on hover of page actions, data-options of elements, etc.
Thanks for all your help too!!!
Tom
No that was not funny. ;) I really had to completely redo the CSS.
Still I would not think that it is necessary to release a new skin. I guess that's the versioning is there for to state the difference and this is there semver comes into play. So a break was to be expected even if you do not like it. ;)
Another thing: I just realized that there is already a Foundation 6. Is this something to expect for Foureground 3.x?
Cheers
Karsten
Am 19.04.2017 um 17:35 schrieb Tom:
The most troubling thing however is that I more or less heavily adapted the CSS of the sites using foreground and the breakage here is pretty massive (beyond recognition - I thought I was accessing a different website which is having many worries).
Lol, but I know it's not funny! There are some changes in the navbar and the styling of it. There must be code changes to CSS if someone wants to maintain the same look. The drop-down menu heights are taller and the selectors for colors are a little different.
It's had me thinking the past couple of days if we should release a completely new skin called ForegroundV2. This way someone could install it turn it on and see the differences. It would be a bit of a pain trying to maintain two versions so I hope just good documentation can solve this.
There are definitely some great benefits to Foundation 5. Medium screen class, native on hover of page actions, data-options of elements, etc.
Thanks for all your help too!!!
Tom
Foreground mailing list Foreground@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foreground
Yes, 2.x.x they should expect a break.
I've worked out the new CSS for top-bar. I just have to go back through and double check a few things.
Possibly 3.0. Once we merge 2.0 into mater and release branch it. I will investigate Foundation 6 more.
Has anyone tested the current develop branch? It's almost ready for release.
Tom
Tom tom@hutch4.us writes:
Yes, 2.x.x they should expect a break.
I've worked out the new CSS for top-bar. I just have to go back through and double check a few things.
Possibly 3.0. Once we merge 2.0 into mater and release branch it. I will investigate Foundation 6 more.
Has anyone tested the current develop branch? It's almost ready for release.
Hi Tom.
I installed it on my test site hosted as just for this machine and found that the spaces between individual items on the navbar drop-downs were considerably larger than on the current snapshot version. It showed something that was nice and compact and easily-readable on the snapshot version, becoming still readable but not quite as 'tight' or concise with the git version. It wasn't nice to look at, showing something that had taken a bit of time to develop and get working nicely with the snapshot version, now looking ugly and appearing not cared for! Harsh maybe, I'm only saying it as I found it! I knew that it could be 'cured' with CSS but I didn't have the knowledge of how to do that, so any upgrade notes/embedded CSS with the new release would be very greatfully received by me at least.
And then I did a reinstall of my OS, and wiped my test site out completely, and I haven't reinstalled it yet but its on my list of jobs to do and then play with the git version.
Thanks Sharon.
foreground@lists.wikimedia.org