[Plone-developers] PLIP proposal: Make byline use be the publication date if it exists
Vitaliy Podoba
Before posting a new PLIP into Plone tracker just wanted to be sure we really
need this small feature in plone core.
The main idea is to add publication date to byline viewlet as described in this
ticket: https://dev.plone.org/ticket/8699
I already implemented this functionality as an addon:
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/collective.improvedbyline and want to know your
opinions. And if we really want this feature go into Plone then will be anybody
willing to second my PLIP?
Thank you for yours replies!
Best Regards,
Vitaliy Podoba
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
_______________________________________________
Plone-developers mailing list
Plone-de...@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
Laurence Rowe
> Hi Plone developers,
>
> Before posting a new PLIP into Plone tracker just wanted to be sure we really
> need this small feature in plone core.
>
> The main idea is to add publication date to byline viewlet as described in this
> ticket: https://dev.plone.org/ticket/8699
>
> I already implemented this functionality as an addon:
> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/collective.improvedbyline and want to know your
> opinions. And if we really want this feature go into Plone then will be anybody
> willing to second my PLIP?
+1. I've switched to showing the publication date on most sites I've
built. I'll happily second it.
Laurence
Guido Stevens
> The main idea is to add publication date to byline viewlet as described in this
> ticket: https://dev.plone.org/ticket/8699
I'm a bit worried that it takes three years, an add-on product and a
PLIP to get a few lines of template improvement into the core.
:*CU#
--
*** Guido A.J. Stevens *** tel: +31.43.3618933 ***
*** guido....@cosent.nl *** Postbus 619 ***
*** http://www.cosent.nl *** 6200 AP Maastricht ***
s h a r i n g m a k e s s e n s e
"The web is not a destination, it's an interface." Great
#socialmedia talk by @VenessaMiemis http://t.co/Fhq6ueQd via
@feedly
http://twitter.com/GuidoStevens
Malthe Borch
> I'm a bit worried that it takes three years, an add-on product and a
> PLIP to get a few lines of template improvement into the core.
Just commit the change; it'll start a small fire, a bit of debate on
the checkins list, but ultimately the bureaucrats will cave in and
accept progess.
+1 to improving Plone in small ways without the unnecessary
bureaucracy and kill-joy.
\malthe
Nathan Van Gheem
Its the way it goes. If you want something down, you have to do it yourself often and not complain. Everyone has lots of things going on...
Fwiw, putting it in an addon first is a really good way to go about these changes.
Thanks!
Jon Stahl
change to merit a PLIP. I think it's one of those things that should
be discussed on the list (props for an add-on prototype!) and then
merged if there are no substantial arguments against. The release
manager has ultimate discretion on small changes like this and can
consult the FWT if it suddenly seems big enough to PLIP, IMHO.
$0.02,
:jon
Malthe Borch
> Fwiw, putting it in an addon first is a really good way to go about these
> changes.
I really disagree with this. The result is a gazillion miniscule,
untested and frankly speaking, "silly" add-ons.
Why not just:
1. Commit change to feature branch;
2. Ask for a review on the developer list;
3. Merge into mainline, or create add-on, or discard altogether.
If you must, PLIP it – and that's obviously required for large or
important changes. This clearly isn't one of those. I would have just
committed it directly into the mainline and perhaps notified the list
after the fact, i.e. "heads up, I changed the byline".
\malthe
thomas desvenain
creation date and/or publication date and/or modification date or nothing is displayed ?
with a gs profile or property in site_properties ?
on different projects, the useful date to display is not always the same.
thomas (volunteer to participate)
Thomas Desvenain
Téléphone : 09 51 37 35 18
garbas
> PLIP to get a few lines of template improvement into the core.
this is all result of triaging old tickets that was started by eleddy.
i personally dont have much time, but to triage 3-5 tickets a week
definetly.
what i've learn while looking at tickets is that there are many many good
ideas
for plips if not even some really nasty bugfixes that we just never merged.
hope i convinced you to join triaging tickets :)
--
View this message in context: http://plone.293351.n2.nabble.com/PLIP-proposal-Make-byline-use-be-the-publication-date-if-it-exists-tp7382171p7384268.html
Sent from the Core Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Yuri
> On 17 March 2012 21:04, Nathan Van Gheem<vang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fwiw, putting it in an addon first is a really good way to go about these
>> changes.
> I really disagree with this. The result is a gazillion miniscule,
> untested and frankly speaking, "silly" add-ons.
>
> Why not just:
>
> 1. Commit change to feature branch;
> 2. Ask for a review on the developer list;
> 3. Merge into mainline, or create add-on, or discard altogether.
Changes like this can be done easly when you do a flag on the control
panel which states "Show the publication date?" default to False. In
this way, nothing changes and who likes it can just put this new entry
in hos site profile :)
In the template you just add a condition but if it is not activated,
nothing changes.
Laurence Rowe
> Il 18/03/2012 09:01, Malthe Borch ha scritto:
>> On 17 March 2012 21:04, Nathan Van Gheem<vang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Fwiw, putting it in an addon first is a really good way to go about these
>>> changes.
>> I really disagree with this. The result is a gazillion miniscule,
>> untested and frankly speaking, "silly" add-ons.
>>
>> Why not just:
>>
>> 1. Commit change to feature branch;
>> 2. Ask for a review on the developer list;
>> 3. Merge into mainline, or create add-on, or discard altogether.
>
> Changes like this can be done easly when you do a flag on the control
> panel which states "Show the publication date?" default to False. In
> this way, nothing changes and who likes it can just put this new entry
> in hos site profile :)
>
> In the template you just add a condition but if it is not activated,
> nothing changes.
We want users to have this UI improvement by default. I don't think it
needs to be configurable through a setting. Sites that want something
different to stock Plone should just override the template.
Laurence
Vitaliy Podoba
Actually this small improvement is a bit more than just one line template update
(at least as it looks to me), that's why I moved that bug to a PLIP. Please,
check it out and let me know what do you think:
https://dev.plone.org/ticket/8699
Laurence Rowe
> Hi,
>
> Actually this small improvement is a bit more than just one line template update
> (at least as it looks to me), that's why I moved that bug to a PLIP. Please,
> check it out and let me know what do you think:
> https://dev.plone.org/ticket/8699
I prefer the simple template update approach (which doesn't really
require a plip as others have mentioned.) This seems over-complex to
me now.
Laurence
Rok Garbas
> On 19 March 2012 12:33, Vitaliy Podoba <vitali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually this small improvement is a bit more than just one line template update
> > (at least as it looks to me), that's why I moved that bug to a PLIP. Please,
> > check it out and let me know what do you think:
> > https://dev.plone.org/ticket/8699
>
> I prefer the simple template update approach (which doesn't really
> require a plip as others have mentioned.) This seems over-complex to
> me now.
>
i used that product quite some times and its exactly what i would expected from
Plone to do by default. for my opinion its not overcomplex. i would say +1 to
vitaliy to implement what he started 3 years ago :)
--
email sent from notmuch.vim plugin
Vitaliy Podoba
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:38:58 +0000, Laurence Rowe <l <at> lrowe.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 19 March 2012 12:33, Vitaliy Podoba <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
> > > Actually this small improvement is a bit more than just one line template
> > > update
> > > (at least as it looks to me), that's why I moved that bug to a PLIP.
> > > Please,
> > > check it out and let me know what do you think:
> > > https://dev.plone.org/ticket/8699
> >
> > I prefer the simple template update approach (which doesn't really
> > require a plip as others have mentioned.) This seems over-complex to
> > me now.
> >
>
> i used that product quite some times and its exactly what i would expected from
> Plone to do by default. for my opinion its not overcomplex. i would say +1 to
> vitaliy to implement what he started 3 years ago :)
>
Ok, then let's wait for Framework Team decision.
I also think that simply displaying Effective Date is not as useful as using
real publication date. But of course, use cases are different so both approaches
could have their applications.
Anthony Gerrard
> Rok Garbas <rok@...> writes:
>
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:38:58 +0000, Laurence Rowe <l <at> lrowe.co.uk> wrote:
>> > On 19 March 2012 12:33, Vitaliy Podoba <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
>> > > Actually this small improvement is a bit more than just one line template
>> > > update
>> > > (at least as it looks to me), that's why I moved that bug to a PLIP.
>> > > Please,
>> > > check it out and let me know what do you think:
>> > > https://dev.plone.org/ticket/8699
>> >
>> > I prefer the simple template update approach (which doesn't really
>> > require a plip as others have mentioned.) This seems over-complex to
>> > me now.
>> >
>>
>> i used that product quite some times and its exactly what i would expected from
>> Plone to do by default. for my opinion its not overcomplex. i would say +1 to
>> vitaliy to implement what he started 3 years ago :)
>>
>
> Ok, then let's wait for Framework Team decision.
>
> I also think that simply displaying Effective Date is not as useful as using
> real publication date. But of course, use cases are different so both approaches
> could have their applications.
>
I thought the effective date is the real publication date? It is set
when you publish an item. It is useful for this to be an editable
field for occasions when you want to change what's displayed e.g.
after revamping an old news article you might update the effective
date to make it look current
Vitaliy Podoba
Yes, it's set on first item publication. But it won't be updated in case object
was retracted and then published again. So we'll usually get old publish date
thus manual synchronization will be required. But, yes, from the other side it
may be useful to manipulate publication date manually.
Honestly saying I don't have a strong opinion on which approach is better and
most often used. Kind of survey would help us to determine the best solution. So
I'm waiting for Framework Team resolution.
Guido Stevens
>> I thought the effective date is the real publication date?
>
> was retracted and then published again. So we'll usually get old publish date
> thus manual synchronization will be required. But, yes, from the other side it
> may be useful to manipulate publication date manually.
I thought this was gracefully covered in your original proposal:
"Published xx, modified yy".
:*CU#
--
*** Guido A.J. Stevens *** tel: +31.43.3618933 ***
*** guido....@cosent.nl *** Postbus 619 ***
*** http://www.cosent.nl *** 6200 AP Maastricht ***
s h a r i n g m a k e s s e n s e
Beautiful! Thanks for sharing this. @fdomon: #SNA ? no, just art
! http://t.co/MQmGMP4c
http://twitter.com/GuidoStevens