I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we look at
potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin side
template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new
Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making the move. The
question here is about changing the template in use in the backend to Isis
(the new admin template) during the update.
On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for an
application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the supporting
classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be the only admin
template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know work's been
done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it does in a lot of
places, but there are still some places that are missing support).
So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and highly
encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend or do we
make the change for them?
I've been thinking that when people upgrade/migrate to a version of 3 that we need to give some more extensive information about what is going on and what their options are than we do when they are upgrade within a major version. I'm not sure how that works but I think it needs to happen.
An unmodified Blue Stork is going to scare people. But there are also strong arguments for not changing.
1. We will ship Hathor also and if you notice we have done some bootstrapping of it that doesn't lose accessibility and also changed to the blue default, but still we high contrast mode available. We'll need to have Hathor until Isis and the boostrap framework in general meet accessibility standards. So in fact for a significant group of users until that happens Isis, like bootstrap, is not a viable option and in no way would we want to switch them to a template that they literally cannot use. If you do see places where Hathor isn't working we need to try to fix all of those in the alpha period. Andy has been in conversation with the Bootstrap team about these issues and anticipates a lot of progress before 3.1 and possibly before 3.0 even.
2. Also, we know that some extensions are just not going to work with the narrower and responsive Isis layout and won't be ready with the submenu work that they need to do. We need to think about how to manage that. Again we can warn people to always check on the extensions first and suggest they switch to Hathor if they need to for this reason.
3.Other people have spent time and money creating customized and branded administrators and it would really be an unpleasant surprise to them to have that all change. Who knows some template developers may have already even planned for this an be ready with their own upgrades.
So maybe we need some kind of second button to let people switch?
On Thursday, August 16, 2012 7:39:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Babker wrote:
> I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we look at > potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin side > template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new > Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making the move. The > question here is about changing the template in use in the backend to Isis > (the new admin template) during the update.
> On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for an > application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the supporting > classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be the only admin > template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know work's been > done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it does in a lot > of places, but there are still some places that are missing support).
> So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and highly > encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend or do we > make the change for them?
Using the update script's postflight method, we can render a message to
users if need be saying whatever we need to tell them. So, that is a
possible approach.
From: elin <elin.war...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thursday, August 16, 2012 7:42 PM
To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [jcms] Re: 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin template?
I've been thinking that when people upgrade/migrate to a version of 3 that
we need to give some more extensive information about what is going on and
what their options are than we do when they are upgrade within a major
version. I'm not sure how that works but I think it needs to happen.
An unmodified Blue Stork is going to scare people. But there are also
strong arguments for not changing.
1. We will ship Hathor also and if you notice we have done some
bootstrapping of it that doesn't lose accessibility and also changed to the
blue default, but still we high contrast mode available. We'll need to have
Hathor until Isis and the boostrap framework in general meet accessibility
standards. So in fact for a significant group of users until that happens
Isis, like bootstrap, is not a viable option and in no way would we want to
switch them to a template that they literally cannot use. If you do see
places where Hathor isn't working we need to try to fix all of those in the
alpha period. Andy has been in conversation with the Bootstrap team about
these issues and anticipates a lot of progress before 3.1 and possibly
before 3.0 even.
2. Also, we know that some extensions are just not going to work with the
narrower and responsive Isis layout and won't be ready with the submenu work
that they need to do. We need to think about how to manage that. Again we
can warn people to always check on the extensions first and suggest they
switch to Hathor if they need to for this reason.
3.Other people have spent time and money creating customized and branded
administrators and it would really be an unpleasant surprise to them to have
that all change. Who knows some template developers may have already even
planned for this an be ready with their own upgrades.
So maybe we need some kind of second button to let people switch?
On Thursday, August 16, 2012 7:39:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Babker wrote:
> I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we look at
> potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin side
> template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new Bootstrap
> based templates to ease the work needed in making the move. The question here
> is about changing the template in use in the backend to Isis (the new admin
> template) during the update.
> On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for an
> application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the supporting
> classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be the only admin
> template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know work's been done
> for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it does in a lot of
> places, but there are still some places that are missing support).
> So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and highly
> encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend or do we
> make the change for them?
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/8TNOUq82y5YJ.
To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> Using the update script's postflight method, we can render a message to
> users if need be saying whatever we need to tell them. So, that is a
> possible approach.
Neither of those options is best (I know everyone knows that), so I'd like
to step up and get Bluestork ready for 3.0. That way users that upgrade
from 2.5 to 3.0 will be upgraded with their default template selected and
can switch to Isis if desired.
To be completely honest, I have no clue how I'm going to get this done, so
if anyone would like to help out in whatever capacity you are able, please
contact me privately (you can see my email in this reply).
My guess is that the new core layouts contain Bootstrap markup and that
Bluestork needs to use the new markup instead.
> I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we look at
> potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin side
> template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new
> Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making the move. The
> question here is about changing the template in use in the backend to Isis
> (the new admin template) during the update.
> On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for an
> application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the
> supporting
> classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be the only
> admin
> template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know work's been
> done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it does in a lot
> of
> places, but there are still some places that are missing support).
> So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and highly
> encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend or do
> we
> make the change for them?
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
Bluestork should be deleted --- expecting the bug squad to try to maintain three admin templates is unacceptable. In the past just trying to keep Hathor up to date caused major headaches , as it was often overlooked when new features added / changes made. Adding bootstrap / jquery is the ONLY major change that has been added to the 3 series ( at the moment anyway ) - so why would anyone want to try it out unless Bluestork is gone and Isis is the new default admin template. Now is the time to make changes, as this is expected when a new major version released and we do need to make " Mobile first " a priority.
On Friday, 17 August 2012 00:39:28 UTC+1, Michael Babker wrote:
> I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we look at > potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin side > template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new > Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making the move. The > question here is about changing the template in use in the backend to Isis > (the new admin template) during the update.
> On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for an > application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the supporting > classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be the only admin > template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know work's been > done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it does in a lot > of places, but there are still some places that are missing support).
> So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and highly > encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend or do we > make the change for them?
> Bluestork should be deleted --- expecting the bug squad to try to
> maintain three admin templates is unacceptable. In the past just
> trying to keep Hathor up to date caused major headaches , as it was
> often overlooked when new features added / changes made.
> Adding bootstrap / jquery is the ONLY major change that has been added
> to the 3 series ( at the moment anyway ) - so why would anyone want to
> try it out unless Bluestork is gone and Isis is the new default admin
> template.
> Now is the time to make changes, as this is expected when a new major
> version released and we do need to make " Mobile first " a priority.
> Regards
> Bill
> On Friday, 17 August 2012 00:39:28 UTC+1, Michael Babker wrote:
> I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we
> look at potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle
> the admin side template? I think our update SQL should handle
> installing both new Bootstrap based templates to ease the work
> needed in making the move. The question here is about changing
> the template in use in the backend to Isis (the new admin
> template) during the update.
> On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template
> for an application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done
> in the supporting classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.),
> Isis may be the only admin template that is fully usable on 3.0
> come release (and I know work's been done for Hathor to make it
> work with the new markup, and it does in a lot of places, but
> there are still some places that are missing support).
> So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and
> highly encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the
> backend or do we make the change for them?
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/2tNDcpoM53AJ.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> Bluestork should be deleted --- expecting the bug squad to try to maintain three admin templates is unacceptable. In the past just trying to keep Hathor up to date caused major headaches , as it was often overlooked when new features added / changes made.
> Adding bootstrap / jquery is the ONLY major change that has been added to the 3 series ( at the moment anyway ) - so why would anyone want to try it out unless Bluestork is gone and Isis is the new default admin template.
> Now is the time to make changes, as this is expected when a new major version released and we do need to make " Mobile first " a priority.
> Regards
> Bill
> On Friday, 17 August 2012 00:39:28 UTC+1, Michael Babker wrote:
> I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we look at potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin side template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making the move. The question here is about changing the template in use in the backend to Isis (the new admin template) during the update.
> On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for an application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the supporting classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be the only admin template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know work's been done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it does in a lot of places, but there are still some places that are missing support).
> So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and highly encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend or do we make the change for them?
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/2tNDcpoM53AJ.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
Someone mentioned the following:
[quote]Adding bootstrap / jquery is the ONLY major change that has been
added to the 3 series ( at the moment anyway ) - so why would anyone want
to try it out unless Bluestork is gone and Isis is the new default admin
template.[/quote]
That argument could actually be used against removing bluestork.
If bootstrap and jquery is the only major change that has been added, why
are we forcing people to switch?
Also, isn't Isis that much better that people would naturally want to
swtich on their own? If it isn't, why would be forcing the switch?
Furthermore, why are we breaking all front-end templates (not just core
front-end templates, but rather all front-end templates) if that's the
only major change?
To top it all off, the Joomla Community has been told that Bootstrap and
jQuery are going to be optional. So why are we breaking all compatibility
for 2.5 templates (not just core ones) for two new optional things?
Seems like those two things should have been new additions in a backward
compatible manner, rather than breaking everything and then saying unless
we remove the old, people will never make the switch.
Waiting a month before Joomla 3 to state that you think Bluestork should
be removed is too close to the launch date. This is especially true when
up until now, we've needed someone to volunteer to get it to work and then
when we finally do get someone to volunteer, that's when you state that
you think it should be removed.
p.s.s We already had a good hearty and productive conversation on the JBS
Skype Chat about all this, but just wanted to make this publicly available
for others that are following along in this mailinglist.
> I agree, if there's interest from the community to maintain it can happen
> as an extensions.
> Best regards
> Rouven
> On 17.08.2012, at 09:14, bill richardson <wr.richard...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>> Bluestork should be deleted --- expecting the bug squad to try to
>> maintain three admin templates is unacceptable. In the past just trying
>> to keep Hathor up to date caused major headaches , as it was often
>> overlooked when new features added / changes made.
>> Adding bootstrap / jquery is the ONLY major change that has been added
>> to the 3 series ( at the moment anyway ) - so why would anyone want to
>> try it out unless Bluestork is gone and Isis is the new default admin
>> template.
>> Now is the time to make changes, as this is expected when a new major
>> version released and we do need to make " Mobile first " a priority.
>> Regards
>> Bill
>> On Friday, 17 August 2012 00:39:28 UTC+1, Michael Babker wrote:
>> I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we look at
>> potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin side
>> template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new
>> Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making the move.
>> The question here is about changing the template in use in the backend
>> to Isis (the new admin template) during the update.
>> On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for an
>> application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the
>> supporting classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be
>> the only admin template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I
>> know work's been done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup,
>> and it does in a lot of places, but there are still some places that are
>> missing support).
>> So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and highly
>> encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend or do
>> we make the change for them?
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/2tNDcpoM53AJ.
>> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
wr.richard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Bluestork should be deleted --- expecting the bug squad to try to maintain
> three admin templates is unacceptable. In the past just trying to keep
> Hathor up to date caused major headaches , as it was often overlooked when
> new features added / changes made.
> Adding bootstrap / jquery is the ONLY major change that has been added to
> the 3 series ( at the moment anyway ) - so why would anyone want to try it
> out unless Bluestork is gone and Isis is the new default admin template.
> Now is the time to make changes, as this is expected when a new major
> version released and we do need to make " Mobile first " a priority.
> Regards
> Bill
> On Friday, 17 August 2012 00:39:28 UTC+1, Michael Babker wrote:
>> I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we look at
>> potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin side
>> template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new
>> Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making the move. The
>> question here is about changing the template in use in the backend to Isis
>> (the new admin template) during the update.
>> On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for an
>> application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the supporting
>> classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be the only admin
>> template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know work's been
>> done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it does in a lot
>> of places, but there are still some places that are missing support).
>> So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and highly
>> encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend or do we
>> make the change for them?
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
Are there any strong *objections* to completely removing Bluestork in 3.0?
If not, we could remove Bluestork (as this appears to be what most on here
want) and make the switch to Isis for upgraders from 2.5 to 3.0.
> I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we look at
> potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin side
> template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new
> Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making the move. The
> question here is about changing the template in use in the backend to Isis
> (the new admin template) during the update.
> On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for an
> application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the
> supporting
> classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be the only
> admin
> template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know work's been
> done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it does in a lot
> of
> places, but there are still some places that are missing support).
> So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and highly
> encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend or do
> we
> make the change for them?
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
Removing bluestork from the distribution does not mean we would remove it from people's sites. As mentioned above the ideal is that we point out to people that they can and probably should switch but we shouldn't force it. None of us know the circumstances of each of the millions of sites in question or how much customization has been done or what their training materials look like. it could well be worth it to some people to make Blue stork work.
On Friday, August 17, 2012 3:30:40 PM UTC-4, Nick Savov wrote:
> Are there any strong *objections* to completely removing Bluestork in 3.0? > If not, we could remove Bluestork (as this appears to be what most on here > want) and make the switch to Isis for upgraders from 2.5 to 3.0.
> Kind regards, > Nick
> > I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we look at > > potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin side > > template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new > > Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making the move. > The > > question here is about changing the template in use in the backend to > Isis > > (the new admin template) during the update.
> > On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for an > > application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the > > supporting > > classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be the only > > admin > > template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know work's > been > > done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it does in a > lot > > of > > places, but there are still some places that are missing support).
> > So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and highly > > encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend or do > > we > > make the change for them?
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > "Joomla! CMS Development" group. > > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>.
And that's why we need to come to a consensus. Depending on how those
templates were designed, there's a chance that we will leave the admin
unusable for those folks. The only guaranteed way to ensure the admin is
usable post-update is to force switch to Isis or get Bluestork working
(which means keeping it around for the 3 series, and there's already been
enough grumbling about having 3 admin templates to maintain). In the
present state, you can't effectively navigate in Bluestork to the Template
Manager and set Isis as default (the grid icon isn't present and the radio
button in the style edit view is overlapped). Unless we have a button in
our postflight notice to make the switch, you effectively make the admin
unusable. To me, this is a larger issue than the site display being changed
and most likely broken.
From: elin <elin.war...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
Date: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:08 PM
To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [jcms] 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin template?
Removing bluestork from the distribution does not mean we would remove it
from people's sites. As mentioned above the ideal is that we point out to
people that they can and probably should switch but we shouldn't force it.
None of us know the circumstances of each of the millions of sites in
question or how much customization has been done or what their training
materials look like. it could well be worth it to some people to make Blue
stork work.
On Friday, August 17, 2012 3:30:40 PM UTC-4, Nick Savov wrote:
> Are there any strong *objections* to completely removing Bluestork in 3.0?
> If not, we could remove Bluestork (as this appears to be what most on here
> want) and make the switch to Isis for upgraders from 2.5 to 3.0.
> Kind regards, > Nick
>> > I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we look at
>> > potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin side
>> > template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new
>> > Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making the move. The
>> > question here is about changing the template in use in the backend to Isis
>> > (the new admin template) during the update.
>> > On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for an
>> > application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the
>> > supporting >> > classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be the only
>> > admin >> > template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know work's been
>> > done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it does in a lot
>> > of >> > places, but there are still some places that are missing support).
>> > So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and highly
>> > encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend or do
>> > we >> > make the change for them?
>> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
>> <javascript:> . >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> .
>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/w_WiBi3et7IJ.
To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
Elin, good point. It would still be there even if we decide to remove it
from the 3.0 repo.
@all
Wouldn't it be simple to check if Bluestork is set as the default, then
force the switch? If Bluestork is not set as the default, leave the
default as it is.
Alternatively, Bluestork could be updated (simply for the 2.5 to 3.0
users), but not maintained thereafter. That, it seems, would meet
everyone's wants and desires, but would be a lot of work for very little
reward.
> And that's why we need to come to a consensus. Depending on how those
> templates were designed, there's a chance that we will leave the admin
> unusable for those folks. The only guaranteed way to ensure the admin is
> usable post-update is to force switch to Isis or get Bluestork working
> (which means keeping it around for the 3 series, and there's already been
> enough grumbling about having 3 admin templates to maintain). In the
> present state, you can't effectively navigate in Bluestork to the Template
> Manager and set Isis as default (the grid icon isn't present and the radio
> button in the style edit view is overlapped). Unless we have a button in
> our postflight notice to make the switch, you effectively make the admin
> unusable. To me, this is a larger issue than the site display being
> changed
> and most likely broken.
> From: elin <elin.war...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:08 PM
> To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [jcms] 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin
> template?
> Removing bluestork from the distribution does not mean we would remove it
> from people's sites. As mentioned above the ideal is that we point out to
> people that they can and probably should switch but we shouldn't force it.
> None of us know the circumstances of each of the millions of sites in
> question or how much customization has been done or what their training
> materials look like. it could well be worth it to some people to make Blue
> stork work.
> Elin
> On Friday, August 17, 2012 3:30:40 PM UTC-4, Nick Savov wrote:
>> Are there any strong *objections* to completely removing Bluestork in
>> 3.0?
>> If not, we could remove Bluestork (as this appears to be what most on
>> here
>> want) and make the switch to Isis for upgraders from 2.5 to 3.0.
>> Kind regards,
>> Nick
>>> > I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we look
>>> at
>>> > potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin
>>> side
>>> > template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new
>>> > Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making the move.
>>> The
>>> > question here is about changing the template in use in the backend to
>>> Isis
>>> > (the new admin template) during the update.
>>> > On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for
>>> an
>>> > application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the
>>> > supporting
>>> > classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be the only
>>> > admin
>>> > template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know work's
>>> been
>>> > done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it does in a
>>> lot
>>> > of
>>> > places, but there are still some places that are missing support).
>>> > So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and highly
>>> > encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend or
>>> do
>>> > we
>>> > make the change for them?
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups
>>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>>> > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
>>> <javascript:> .
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> > joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> .
>>> > For more options, visit this group at
>>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/w_WiBi3et7IJ.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
As much as I'd like to see the new Bootstrap admin templates be the default
ones, and I REALLY do, couldn't forcing them to be the default ones
introduce backwards compatibility issues with 3PD extensions?
Best,
Matt
Sent from my phone that uses an open source operating system.
On Aug 17, 2012 11:52 PM, "Nick Savov" <n...@iowawebcompany.com> wrote:
> Elin, good point. It would still be there even if we decide to remove it
> from the 3.0 repo.
> @all
> Wouldn't it be simple to check if Bluestork is set as the default, then
> force the switch? If Bluestork is not set as the default, leave the
> default as it is.
> Alternatively, Bluestork could be updated (simply for the 2.5 to 3.0
> users), but not maintained thereafter. That, it seems, would meet
> everyone's wants and desires, but would be a lot of work for very little
> reward.
> Kind regards,
> Nick
> > And that's why we need to come to a consensus. Depending on how those
> > templates were designed, there's a chance that we will leave the admin
> > unusable for those folks. The only guaranteed way to ensure the admin is
> > usable post-update is to force switch to Isis or get Bluestork working
> > (which means keeping it around for the 3 series, and there's already been
> > enough grumbling about having 3 admin templates to maintain). In the
> > present state, you can't effectively navigate in Bluestork to the
> Template
> > Manager and set Isis as default (the grid icon isn't present and the
> radio
> > button in the style edit view is overlapped). Unless we have a button in
> > our postflight notice to make the switch, you effectively make the admin
> > unusable. To me, this is a larger issue than the site display being
> > changed
> > and most likely broken.
> > From: elin <elin.war...@gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
> > Date: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:08 PM
> > To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [jcms] 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin
> > template?
> > Removing bluestork from the distribution does not mean we would remove it
> > from people's sites. As mentioned above the ideal is that we point out to
> > people that they can and probably should switch but we shouldn't force
> it.
> > None of us know the circumstances of each of the millions of sites in
> > question or how much customization has been done or what their training
> > materials look like. it could well be worth it to some people to make
> Blue
> > stork work.
> > Elin
> > On Friday, August 17, 2012 3:30:40 PM UTC-4, Nick Savov wrote:
> >> Are there any strong *objections* to completely removing Bluestork in
> >> 3.0?
> >> If not, we could remove Bluestork (as this appears to be what most on
> >> here
> >> want) and make the switch to Isis for upgraders from 2.5 to 3.0.
> >> Kind regards,
> >> Nick
> >>> > I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we look
> >>> at
> >>> > potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin
> >>> side
> >>> > template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new
> >>> > Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making the move.
> >>> The
> >>> > question here is about changing the template in use in the backend to
> >>> Isis
> >>> > (the new admin template) during the update.
> >>> > On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for
> >>> an
> >>> > application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the
> >>> > supporting
> >>> > classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be the only
> >>> > admin
> >>> > template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know work's
> >>> been
> >>> > done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it does in a
> >>> lot
> >>> > of
> >>> > places, but there are still some places that are missing support).
> >>> > So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and highly
> >>> > encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend or
> >>> do
> >>> > we
> >>> > make the change for them?
> >>> > --
> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>> Groups
> >>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> >>> > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
> >>> <javascript:> .
> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>> > joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> .
> >>> > For more options, visit this group at
> >>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/w_WiBi3et7IJ.
> > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
> .
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
It can, yes, but the damage won't be as severe for the backend. For the
most part, a layout based on Bluestork's markup will display on Isis in 3.0.
That said, users won't have the component submenu since that's rendered by
the component now instead of the template, and depending on the extension,
some things may look out of place.
From: Matt Thomas <m...@betweenbrain.com>
Reply-To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
Date: Saturday, August 18, 2012 8:40 AM
To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [jcms] 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin template?
Hi Folks,
As much as I'd like to see the new Bootstrap admin templates be the default
ones, and I REALLY do, couldn't forcing them to be the default ones
introduce backwards compatibility issues with 3PD extensions?
Best,
Matt
Sent from my phone that uses an open source operating system.
On Aug 17, 2012 11:52 PM, "Nick Savov" <n...@iowawebcompany.com> wrote:
> Elin, good point. It would still be there even if we decide to remove it
> from the 3.0 repo.
> @all
> Wouldn't it be simple to check if Bluestork is set as the default, then
> force the switch? If Bluestork is not set as the default, leave the
> default as it is.
> Alternatively, Bluestork could be updated (simply for the 2.5 to 3.0
> users), but not maintained thereafter. That, it seems, would meet
> everyone's wants and desires, but would be a lot of work for very little
> reward.
> Kind regards,
> Nick
>> > And that's why we need to come to a consensus. Depending on how those
>> > templates were designed, there's a chance that we will leave the admin
>> > unusable for those folks. The only guaranteed way to ensure the admin is
>> > usable post-update is to force switch to Isis or get Bluestork working
>> > (which means keeping it around for the 3 series, and there's already been
>> > enough grumbling about having 3 admin templates to maintain). In the
>> > present state, you can't effectively navigate in Bluestork to the Template
>> > Manager and set Isis as default (the grid icon isn't present and the radio
>> > button in the style edit view is overlapped). Unless we have a button in
>> > our postflight notice to make the switch, you effectively make the admin
>> > unusable. To me, this is a larger issue than the site display being
>> > changed
>> > and most likely broken.
>> > From: elin <elin.war...@gmail.com>
>> > Reply-To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
>> > Date: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:08 PM
>> > To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
>> > Subject: Re: [jcms] 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin
>> > template?
>> > Removing bluestork from the distribution does not mean we would remove it
>> > from people's sites. As mentioned above the ideal is that we point out to
>> > people that they can and probably should switch but we shouldn't force it.
>> > None of us know the circumstances of each of the millions of sites in
>> > question or how much customization has been done or what their training
>> > materials look like. it could well be worth it to some people to make Blue
>> > stork work.
>> > Elin
>> > On Friday, August 17, 2012 3:30:40 PM UTC-4, Nick Savov wrote:
>>> >> Are there any strong *objections* to completely removing Bluestork in
>>> >> 3.0?
>>> >> If not, we could remove Bluestork (as this appears to be what most on
>>> >> here
>>> >> want) and make the switch to Isis for upgraders from 2.5 to 3.0.
>>> >> Kind regards,
>>> >> Nick
>>>>> >>> > I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we
look
>>>> >>> at
>>>>> >>> > potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin
>>>> >>> side
>>>>> >>> > template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new
>>>>> >>> > Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making the
move.
>>>> >>> The
>>>>> >>> > question here is about changing the template in use in the backend
to
>>>> >>> Isis
>>>>> >>> > (the new admin template) during the update.
>>>>> >>> > On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for
>>>> >>> an
>>>>> >>> > application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the
>>>>> >>> > supporting
>>>>> >>> > classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be the
only
>>>>> >>> > admin
>>>>> >>> > template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know work's
>>>> >>> been
>>>>> >>> > done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it does in
a
>>>> >>> lot
>>>>> >>> > of
>>>>> >>> > places, but there are still some places that are missing support).
>>>>> >>> > So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and >>>>>
highly
>>>>> >>> > encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend
or
>>>> >>> do
>>>>> >>> > we
>>>>> >>> > make the change for them?
>>>>> >>> > --
>>>>> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> >>> Groups
>>>>> >>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>>>>> >>> > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
>>>> >>> <javascript:> .
>>>>> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>> >>> > joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> .
>>>>> >>> > For more options, visit this group at
>>>>> >>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/w_WiBi3et7IJ.
>> > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> .
>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> .
>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
What about sites with admin-side template overrides in the Bluestork /html
folder? Forcing a change in template upon upgrade would make the admin
lose those overrides... not an issue if a dev/maintainer is performing the
upgrade, but clients themselves are clicking the "Upgrade Joomla" button
nowadays since it's so prominent.
--
Rafael Diaz-Tushman, President & CEO
Dioscouri Design: Form and Function
www.dioscouri.com www.twitter.com/dioscouri
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Michael Babker <mbab...@flbab.com> wrote:
> It can, yes, but the damage won't be as severe for the backend. For the
> most part, a layout based on Bluestork's markup will display on Isis in
> 3.0. That said, users won't have the component submenu since that's
> rendered by the component now instead of the template, and depending on the
> extension, some things may look out of place.
> From: Matt Thomas <m...@betweenbrain.com>
> Reply-To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, August 18, 2012 8:40 AM
> To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [jcms] 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin
> template?
> Hi Folks,
> As much as I'd like to see the new Bootstrap admin templates be the
> default ones, and I REALLY do, couldn't forcing them to be the default ones
> introduce backwards compatibility issues with 3PD extensions?
> Best,
> Matt
> Sent from my phone that uses an open source operating system.
> On Aug 17, 2012 11:52 PM, "Nick Savov" <n...@iowawebcompany.com> wrote:
>> Elin, good point. It would still be there even if we decide to remove it
>> from the 3.0 repo.
>> @all
>> Wouldn't it be simple to check if Bluestork is set as the default, then
>> force the switch? If Bluestork is not set as the default, leave the
>> default as it is.
>> Alternatively, Bluestork could be updated (simply for the 2.5 to 3.0
>> users), but not maintained thereafter. That, it seems, would meet
>> everyone's wants and desires, but would be a lot of work for very little
>> reward.
>> Kind regards,
>> Nick
>> > And that's why we need to come to a consensus. Depending on how those
>> > templates were designed, there's a chance that we will leave the admin
>> > unusable for those folks. The only guaranteed way to ensure the admin
>> is
>> > usable post-update is to force switch to Isis or get Bluestork working
>> > (which means keeping it around for the 3 series, and there's already
>> been
>> > enough grumbling about having 3 admin templates to maintain). In the
>> > present state, you can't effectively navigate in Bluestork to the
>> Template
>> > Manager and set Isis as default (the grid icon isn't present and the
>> radio
>> > button in the style edit view is overlapped). Unless we have a button
>> in
>> > our postflight notice to make the switch, you effectively make the admin
>> > unusable. To me, this is a larger issue than the site display being
>> > changed
>> > and most likely broken.
>> > From: elin <elin.war...@gmail.com>
>> > Reply-To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
>> > Date: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:08 PM
>> > To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
>> > Subject: Re: [jcms] 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin
>> > template?
>> > Removing bluestork from the distribution does not mean we would remove
>> it
>> > from people's sites. As mentioned above the ideal is that we point out
>> to
>> > people that they can and probably should switch but we shouldn't force
>> it.
>> > None of us know the circumstances of each of the millions of sites in
>> > question or how much customization has been done or what their training
>> > materials look like. it could well be worth it to some people to make
>> Blue
>> > stork work.
>> > Elin
>> > On Friday, August 17, 2012 3:30:40 PM UTC-4, Nick Savov wrote:
>> >> Are there any strong *objections* to completely removing Bluestork in
>> >> 3.0?
>> >> If not, we could remove Bluestork (as this appears to be what most on
>> >> here
>> >> want) and make the switch to Isis for upgraders from 2.5 to 3.0.
>> >> Kind regards,
>> >> Nick
>> >>> > I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we
>> look
>> >>> at
>> >>> > potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin
>> >>> side
>> >>> > template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new
>> >>> > Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making the
>> move.
>> >>> The
>> >>> > question here is about changing the template in use in the backend
>> to
>> >>> Isis
>> >>> > (the new admin template) during the update.
>> >>> > On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for
>> >>> an
>> >>> > application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the
>> >>> > supporting
>> >>> > classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be the
>> only
>> >>> > admin
>> >>> > template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know work's
>> >>> been
>> >>> > done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it does in
>> a
>> >>> lot
>> >>> > of
>> >>> > places, but there are still some places that are missing support).
>> >>> > So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and
>> highly
>> >>> > encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend
>> or
>> >>> do
>> >>> > we
>> >>> > make the change for them?
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >>> Groups
>> >>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> >>> > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
>> >>> <javascript:> .
>> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> >>> > joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> .
>> >>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> >>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/w_WiBi3et7IJ.
>> > To post to this group, send an email to
>> joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
I dont know about you all but to me it is common sense to use new bootstrap admin template as default and to even drop the older ones and offer them as seperate download.
Why? Simple as real life is, simple clean cut and starting over. Thats why we do have J3.0 and J3.1 and why they are Short term release.
Forgive me for being so bold but i have seen this type of thinking through out my career and it never ends up right. So if u want joomla to be pushed towards the bootstrap then forget the old prehistoric stuff and lets move on.
By the time the 3.5 is out most of the user base around the web will be adopting new layouts that are mobile oriented. And more FOCUS we put on it now the better we will look in the end.
Old outdated stuff should be dropped in this lets call it switch phase that 3.0 really represents.
Cheers to the dev team finally happy with the way things are going
JP
Lead Project Manager
Sfera IT
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 18, 2012, at 15:40, Matt Thomas <m...@betweenbrain.com> wrote:
> As much as I'd like to see the new Bootstrap admin templates be the default ones, and I REALLY do, couldn't forcing them to be the default ones introduce backwards compatibility issues with 3PD extensions?
> Best,
> Matt
> Sent from my phone that uses an open source operating system.
> On Aug 17, 2012 11:52 PM, "Nick Savov" <n...@iowawebcompany.com> wrote:
> Elin, good point. It would still be there even if we decide to remove it
> from the 3.0 repo.
> @all
> Wouldn't it be simple to check if Bluestork is set as the default, then
> force the switch? If Bluestork is not set as the default, leave the
> default as it is.
> Alternatively, Bluestork could be updated (simply for the 2.5 to 3.0
> users), but not maintained thereafter. That, it seems, would meet
> everyone's wants and desires, but would be a lot of work for very little
> reward.
> Kind regards,
> Nick
> > And that's why we need to come to a consensus. Depending on how those
> > templates were designed, there's a chance that we will leave the admin
> > unusable for those folks. The only guaranteed way to ensure the admin is
> > usable post-update is to force switch to Isis or get Bluestork working
> > (which means keeping it around for the 3 series, and there's already been
> > enough grumbling about having 3 admin templates to maintain). In the
> > present state, you can't effectively navigate in Bluestork to the Template
> > Manager and set Isis as default (the grid icon isn't present and the radio
> > button in the style edit view is overlapped). Unless we have a button in
> > our postflight notice to make the switch, you effectively make the admin
> > unusable. To me, this is a larger issue than the site display being
> > changed
> > and most likely broken.
> > From: elin <elin.war...@gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
> > Date: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:08 PM
> > To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [jcms] 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin
> > template?
> > Removing bluestork from the distribution does not mean we would remove it
> > from people's sites. As mentioned above the ideal is that we point out to
> > people that they can and probably should switch but we shouldn't force it.
> > None of us know the circumstances of each of the millions of sites in
> > question or how much customization has been done or what their training
> > materials look like. it could well be worth it to some people to make Blue
> > stork work.
> > Elin
> > On Friday, August 17, 2012 3:30:40 PM UTC-4, Nick Savov wrote:
> >> Are there any strong *objections* to completely removing Bluestork in
> >> 3.0?
> >> If not, we could remove Bluestork (as this appears to be what most on
> >> here
> >> want) and make the switch to Isis for upgraders from 2.5 to 3.0.
> >> Kind regards,
> >> Nick
> >>> > I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as we look
> >>> at
> >>> > potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the admin
> >>> side
> >>> > template? I think our update SQL should handle installing both new
> >>> > Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making the move.
> >>> The
> >>> > question here is about changing the template in use in the backend to
> >>> Isis
> >>> > (the new admin template) during the update.
> >>> > On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected template for
> >>> an
> >>> > application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in the
> >>> > supporting
> >>> > classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be the only
> >>> > admin
> >>> > template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know work's
> >>> been
> >>> > done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it does in a
> >>> lot
> >>> > of
> >>> > places, but there are still some places that are missing support).
> >>> > So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and highly
> >>> > encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the backend or
> >>> do
> >>> > we
> >>> > make the change for them?
> >>> > --
> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>> Groups
> >>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> >>> > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
> >>> <javascript:> .
> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>> > joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> .
> >>> > For more options, visit this group at
> >>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/w_WiBi3et7IJ.
> > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
I agree totally. 3.0/3.x is the first release after a major, long-term support release (2.5.x) and as much deprecated and obsolete stuff as possible should be thrown out (admin templates and magic quotes to name just a couple). There's never going to be a better time to do it, so do it and get it done :).
> I dont know about you all but to me it is common sense to use new > bootstrap admin template as default and to even drop the older ones > and offer them as seperate download.
> Why? Simple as real life is, simple clean cut and starting over. Thats > why we do have J3.0 and J3.1 and why they are Short term release.
> Forgive me for being so bold but i have seen this type of thinking > through out my career and it never ends up right. So if u want joomla > to be pushed towards the bootstrap then forget the old prehistoric > stuff and lets move on.
> By the time the 3.5 is out most of the user base around the web will > be adopting new layouts that are mobile oriented. And more FOCUS we > put on it now the better we will look in the end.
> Old outdated stuff should be dropped in this lets call it switch phase > that 3.0 really represents.
> Cheers to the dev team finally happy with the way things are going
> JP
> Lead Project Manager
> Sfera IT
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 18, 2012, at 15:40, Matt Thomas <m...@betweenbrain.com > <mailto:m...@betweenbrain.com>> wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>> As much as I'd like to see the new Bootstrap admin templates be the >> default ones, and I REALLY do, couldn't forcing them to be the >> default ones introduce backwards compatibility issues with 3PD >> extensions?
>> Best,
>> Matt
>> Sent from my phone that uses an open source operating system.
>> On Aug 17, 2012 11:52 PM, "Nick Savov" <n...@iowawebcompany.com >> <mailto:n...@iowawebcompany.com>> wrote:
>> Elin, good point. It would still be there even if we decide to
>> remove it
>> from the 3.0 repo.
>> @all
>> Wouldn't it be simple to check if Bluestork is set as the
>> default, then
>> force the switch? If Bluestork is not set as the default, leave the
>> default as it is.
>> Alternatively, Bluestork could be updated (simply for the 2.5 to 3.0
>> users), but not maintained thereafter. That, it seems, would meet
>> everyone's wants and desires, but would be a lot of work for very
>> little
>> reward.
>> Kind regards,
>> Nick
>> > And that's why we need to come to a consensus. Depending on
>> how those
>> > templates were designed, there's a chance that we will leave
>> the admin
>> > unusable for those folks. The only guaranteed way to ensure
>> the admin is
>> > usable post-update is to force switch to Isis or get Bluestork
>> working
>> > (which means keeping it around for the 3 series, and there's
>> already been
>> > enough grumbling about having 3 admin templates to maintain).
>> In the
>> > present state, you can't effectively navigate in Bluestork to
>> the Template
>> > Manager and set Isis as default (the grid icon isn't present
>> and the radio
>> > button in the style edit view is overlapped). Unless we have a
>> button in
>> > our postflight notice to make the switch, you effectively make
>> the admin
>> > unusable. To me, this is a larger issue than the site display
>> being
>> > changed
>> > and most likely broken.
>> > From: elin <elin.war...@gmail.com <mailto:elin.war...@gmail.com>>
>> > Reply-To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>>
>> > Date: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:08 PM
>> > To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>>
>> > Subject: Re: [jcms] 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin
>> > template?
>> > Removing bluestork from the distribution does not mean we would
>> remove it
>> > from people's sites. As mentioned above the ideal is that we
>> point out to
>> > people that they can and probably should switch but we
>> shouldn't force it.
>> > None of us know the circumstances of each of the millions of
>> sites in
>> > question or how much customization has been done or what their
>> training
>> > materials look like. it could well be worth it to some people
>> to make Blue
>> > stork work.
>> > Elin
>> > On Friday, August 17, 2012 3:30:40 PM UTC-4, Nick Savov wrote:
>> >> Are there any strong *objections* to completely removing
>> Bluestork in
>> >> 3.0?
>> >> If not, we could remove Bluestork (as this appears to be what
>> most on
>> >> here
>> >> want) and make the switch to Isis for upgraders from 2.5 to 3.0.
>> >> Kind regards,
>> >> Nick
>> >>> > I think this is an important item to discuss and implement
>> as we look
>> >>> at
>> >>> > potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle
>> the admin
>> >>> side
>> >>> > template? I think our update SQL should handle installing
>> both new
>> >>> > Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making
>> the move.
>> >>> The
>> >>> > question here is about changing the template in use in the
>> backend to
>> >>> Isis
>> >>> > (the new admin template) during the update.
>> >>> > On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected
>> template for
>> >>> an
>> >>> > application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done
>> in the
>> >>> > supporting
>> >>> > classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may
>> be the only
>> >>> > admin
>> >>> > template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I
>> know work's
>> >>> been
>> >>> > done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it
>> does in a
>> >>> lot
>> >>> > of
>> >>> > places, but there are still some places that are missing
>> support).
>> >>> > So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is
>> and highly
>> >>> > encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the
>> backend or
>> >>> do
>> >>> > we
>> >>> > make the change for them?
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> Google
>> >>> Groups
>> >>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> >>> > To post to this group, send an email to
>> joomla-...@googlegroups.com <mailto:joomla-...@googlegroups.com>
>> >>> <javascript:> .
>> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> >>> > joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com> <javascript:> .
>> >>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> >>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> Google Groups
>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/w_WiBi3et7IJ.
>> > To post to this group, send an email to
>> joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> Google Groups
>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> > To post to this group, send an email to
>> joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> To post to this group, send an email to
>> joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> To post to this group, send an email to >> joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com <mailto:joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
>> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Unless the Joomla CMS is jockeying for an episode of Hoarders, something has to go when new things are brought in. As is, the CMS is nearly 3 times larger than both WordPress and Drupal. Ever consider how that extra weight might be impacting the install process?
Good-bye to nearly 10 years of User Interface, time to embrace the future! It is a good thing.
> It can, yes, but the damage won't be as severe for the backend. For the
> most part, a layout based on Bluestork's markup will display on Isis in
> 3.0.
> That said, users won't have the component submenu since that's rendered by
> the component now instead of the template, and depending on the extension,
> some things may look out of place.
> From: Matt Thomas <m...@betweenbrain.com>
> Reply-To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, August 18, 2012 8:40 AM
> To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [jcms] 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin
> template?
> Hi Folks,
> As much as I'd like to see the new Bootstrap admin templates be the
> default
> ones, and I REALLY do, couldn't forcing them to be the default ones
> introduce backwards compatibility issues with 3PD extensions?
> Best,
> Matt
> Sent from my phone that uses an open source operating system.
> On Aug 17, 2012 11:52 PM, "Nick Savov" <n...@iowawebcompany.com> wrote:
>> Elin, good point. It would still be there even if we decide to remove
>> it
>> from the 3.0 repo.
>> @all
>> Wouldn't it be simple to check if Bluestork is set as the default, then
>> force the switch? If Bluestork is not set as the default, leave the
>> default as it is.
>> Alternatively, Bluestork could be updated (simply for the 2.5 to 3.0
>> users), but not maintained thereafter. That, it seems, would meet
>> everyone's wants and desires, but would be a lot of work for very little
>> reward.
>> Kind regards,
>> Nick
>>> > And that's why we need to come to a consensus. Depending on how
>>> those
>>> > templates were designed, there's a chance that we will leave the
>>> admin
>>> > unusable for those folks. The only guaranteed way to ensure the
>>> admin is
>>> > usable post-update is to force switch to Isis or get Bluestork
>>> working
>>> > (which means keeping it around for the 3 series, and there's already
>>> been
>>> > enough grumbling about having 3 admin templates to maintain). In the
>>> > present state, you can't effectively navigate in Bluestork to the
>>> Template
>>> > Manager and set Isis as default (the grid icon isn't present and the
>>> radio
>>> > button in the style edit view is overlapped). Unless we have a
>>> button in
>>> > our postflight notice to make the switch, you effectively make the
>>> admin
>>> > unusable. To me, this is a larger issue than the site display being
>>> > changed
>>> > and most likely broken.
>>> > From: elin <elin.war...@gmail.com>
>>> > Reply-To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
>>> > Date: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:08 PM
>>> > To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
>>> > Subject: Re: [jcms] 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin
>>> > template?
>>> > Removing bluestork from the distribution does not mean we would
>>> remove it
>>> > from people's sites. As mentioned above the ideal is that we point
>>> out to
>>> > people that they can and probably should switch but we shouldn't
>>> force it.
>>> > None of us know the circumstances of each of the millions of sites in
>>> > question or how much customization has been done or what their
>>> training
>>> > materials look like. it could well be worth it to some people to make
>>> Blue
>>> > stork work.
>>> > Elin
>>> > On Friday, August 17, 2012 3:30:40 PM UTC-4, Nick Savov wrote:
>>>> >> Are there any strong *objections* to completely removing Bluestork
>>>> in
>>>> >> 3.0?
>>>> >> If not, we could remove Bluestork (as this appears to be what most
>>>> on
>>>> >> here
>>>> >> want) and make the switch to Isis for upgraders from 2.5 to 3.0.
>>>> >> Kind regards,
>>>> >> Nick
>>>>>> >>> > I think this is an important item to discuss and implement as
>>>>>> we
> look
>>>>> >>> at
>>>>>> >>> > potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle the
>>>>>> admin
>>>>> >>> side
>>>>>> >>> > template? I think our update SQL should handle installing
>>>>>> both new
>>>>>> >>> > Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making
>>>>>> the
> move.
>>>>> >>> The
>>>>>> >>> > question here is about changing the template in use in the
>>>>>> backend
> to
>>>>> >>> Isis
>>>>>> >>> > (the new admin template) during the update.
>>>>>> >>> > On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected
>>>>>> template for
>>>>> >>> an
>>>>>> >>> > application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >>> > supporting
>>>>>> >>> > classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may be
>>>>>> the
> only
>>>>>> >>> > admin
>>>>>> >>> > template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I know
>>>>>> work's
>>>>> >>> been
>>>>>> >>> > done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it
>>>>>> does in
> a
>>>>> >>> lot
>>>>>> >>> > of
>>>>>> >>> > places, but there are still some places that are missing
>>>>>> support).
>>>>>> >>> > So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is and
> highly
>>>>>> >>> > encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the
>>>>>> backend
> or
>>>>> >>> do
>>>>>> >>> > we
>>>>>> >>> > make the change for them?
>>>>>> >>> > --
>>>>>> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>>>>> Google
>>>>> >>> Groups
>>>>>> >>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>>>>>> >>> > To post to this group, send an email to
>>>>>> joomla-...@googlegroups.com
>>>>> >>> <javascript:> .
>>>>>> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>>> >>> > joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> .
>>>>>> >>> > For more options, visit this group at
>>>>>> >>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups
>>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
>>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/w_WiBi3et7IJ.
>>> > To post to this group, send an email to
>>> joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> > joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> .
>>> > For more options, visit this group at
>>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups
>>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>>> > To post to this group, send an email to
>>> joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> > joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> .
>>> > For more options, visit this group at
>>> > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
I totally agree and to point out i have asked over 60 client companies to respond to me with this same question and 54 answered that if i give them better solution to the backend and frontend they would not even think about not upgrading. And after i explained the different in the simpleminded thought process of simple user they said: so u say it works on any platform even on my iphone? After simple show and tell they all are onboard for new and even more asking already when am i making the upgrade.
So yes, close the door to the old and lets go progressive and ahead of others before they all catch up.
Josip Posavec
Lead Project Manager
Sfera IT
Mob:+385 98 947 7597
E-Mail: jo...@crowebs.net
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 18, 2012, at 20:17, Amy Stephen <amystep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unless the Joomla CMS is jockeying for an episode of Hoarders, something has to go when new things are brought in. As is, the CMS is nearly 3 times larger than both WordPress and Drupal. Ever consider how that extra weight might be impacting the install process?
> Good-bye to nearly 10 years of User Interface, time to embrace the future! It is a good thing.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/bx3eOz8_E38J.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> I totally agree and to point out i have asked over 60 client companies to respond to me with this same question and 54 answered that if i give them better solution to the backend and frontend they would not even think about not upgrading. And after i explained the different in the simpleminded thought process of simple user they said: so u say it works on any platform even on my iphone? After simple show and tell they all are onboard for new and even more asking already when am i making the upgrade.
> So yes, close the door to the old and lets go progressive and ahead of others before they all catch up.
> Josip Posavec
> Lead Project Manager
> Sfera IT
> Mob:+385 98 947 7597
> E-Mail: jo...@crowebs.net
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 18, 2012, at 20:17, Amy Stephen <amystep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Unless the Joomla CMS is jockeying for an episode of Hoarders, something has to go when new things are brought in. As is, the CMS is nearly 3 times larger than both WordPress and Drupal. Ever consider how that extra weight might be impacting the install process?
>> Good-bye to nearly 10 years of User Interface, time to embrace the future! It is a good thing.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/bx3eOz8_E38J.
>> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
No one that I know of wants to ship Bluestork, so the something has to go issue is not the issue. It's how to help upgraders (a) if they have made no changes (give them a button or option) and (b) if they have made changes to the admin template or are using an alternative admin template .... these webmasters are going to have do do some work which is why this is a migration not an upgrade.
1. Hathor is a good alternative to bluestork for situations where you have oldstyle outputs. If we can get Jeremy's admin menu work in that is going to solve a ton of problems since we should eve be able to assign Hathor only where needed.
2. If people have overrides in the actual Bluestork folder they can just copy them to whatever new template they want or to Hathor.
3. I'm sure there is tons of good will and/or some money to be earned for someone to put the time in to make a downloadable updated blue stork or even just a zip of the old layouts to be put in any html folder, but just like with Milky way and Solar Flare I suspect the demand is going to be extremely limited after the first 6 weeks. Still we all know that there area premiums out there for supporting IE6 and php 4 etc and I have no doubt that if there is that demand the market will fill it.
4. I really think ... let's avoid excess complexity. How in the world are we going to check whether a blue stork instance is actually a default -- what does that even mean given that we have styles and who knows what files added. The important thing actually is that we've said this is a migration, we need to have good docs on what that means, in this case much much less work than any migration that has come before.
On Saturday, August 18, 2012 3:41:03 PM UTC-4, Vic Drover wrote:
> +1
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 18, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Josip Posavec <jo...@crowebs.net<javascript:>> > wrote:
> I totally agree and to point out i have asked over 60 client companies to > respond to me with this same question and 54 answered that if i give them > better solution to the backend and frontend they would not even think about > not upgrading. And after i explained the different in the simpleminded > thought process of simple user they said: so u say it works on any platform > even on my iphone? After simple show and tell they all are onboard for new > and even more asking already when am i making the upgrade.
> So yes, close the door to the old and lets go progressive and ahead of > others before they all catch up.
> Josip Posavec > Lead Project Manager > Sfera IT > Mob:+385 98 947 7597 > E-Mail: jo...@crowebs.net <javascript:> > Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 18, 2012, at 20:17, Amy Stephen <amyst...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote:
> Unless the Joomla CMS is jockeying for an episode of Hoarders, something > has to go when new things are brought in. As is, the CMS is nearly 3 times > larger than both WordPress and Drupal. Ever consider how that extra weight > might be impacting the install process?
> Good-bye to nearly 10 years of User Interface, time to embrace the future! > It is a good thing.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Joomla! CMS Development" group. > To view this discussion on the web, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/bx3eOz8_E38J. > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Joomla! CMS Development" group. > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Amy Stephen <amystep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:15 PM, elin <elin.war...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No one that I know of wants to ship Bluestork,
On the contrary, there's been quite a bit of discussion on updating
Bluestork.
Personally, I think the old Templates should be removed and the update
process should warn that will happen. Having core software sit around that
will never be updated again and is no longer supported comes with it's own
set of risks. If it can be removed, I think that would be good.
I also think the new Template should be set to the default. And old,
non-core admin template won't be ready -- so putting the Template there
that will work means they can then use it to upgrade to a version of their
old Template -- if they want, when it's ready. At worst, they'll be
confused -- but only because they didn't read the doc and warnings. ;-)
They'll figure it out, I think.
