Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:

Boris Mann wrote:

...

So, Drupal-Id is back over at TinyMCE Plus. And the TinyMCE javascripts are checked into CVS -- http://cvs.drupal.org/viewcvs/drupal/contributions/modules/tinymce_plus/incl...

I've removed these and explained this to him.

Apparently the explanation wasn't clear enough, he added the stuff a second time. I am not going to put any more resources into this and have disabled his CVS account and unpublished the tinymce "plus" project. Case closed. Cheers, Gerhard

I'm sorry I haven't been spending more time dealing with this, but like most developers I have a job that requires my attention as well. I got involved in this module because (again, like many other people) the issues with TinyMCE and direction it goes impact my projects. That hasn't changed. Drupal-id's last update was a complete surprise and since the since I've been implementing the module with modified .js themes, I didn't have the option of evaluating the code as part of my 9-5 gig. When I asked the people on this list for advice, most of the responses I received were less than helpful. I've downloaded, installed, and have been trying to find the time to test and compare all 3 versions (Moxie, 5.1, and what I've been calling 5.2). I've also been looking at the issue ufku has identified with the TinyMCE code and Drupal... not the modules, but the code all of these modules actually enable. I did try to contact Drupal-id after that latest update became the release and have been exchanging email directly with many of the developers who have been working with the .js themes. I've just launched my biggest project in beta yesterday and will spend some time today and tomorrow dealing with this. My goal was (and still is) to find a way to allow both .js customization per role/content type in the 5.2 versions while dealing with the immediate issues in the other versions, but I'm relatively new to Drupal module development and doing the "Drupal way". I think I might be one of the most informed people about all of the issues in all of the versions of TinyMCE enabling modules and I am willing to continue maintaining this module as time allows, but I understand the importance of error free WYSIWYG toolbars on Drupal's success. If there is someone who is informed and has more time wants to take over, I'm not opposed to that. I have no problem working with other developers, but my attempts to discuss my POV with Allie basically led to name calling. I use features from the previous version of 5.1 that I'd like maintained. If the Moxie group (and now possibly drupal-id) doesn't care about those features, then I agree with Dries and that modules should fork and the better feature set will win out. IMHO, including drupal-id in these conversations isn't productive. The responses I've gotten from Jonathan (and/or Wendy) have been less than productive. I understand that there is a language barrier, but the communication issues go beyond that. I would REALLY like to discuss this in some way other than email or in the issue queues with the people involved. Is anyone interested in finding the time for a multiuser iChat or Skype audio conference? ___ Kevin Reynen Integrated Media Coordinator Reynolds School of Journalism and Advanced Media Research University of Nevada, Reno On 2/15/07, Fernando Silva <fsilva.pt@gmail.com> wrote:

This is one of those "particular" moments, where Drupal core developers should step in, make a statement and enforce it. Drupal community must be able to trust, that when some difficult situations arise, senior developers will solve those situations.

Solution?! There is only one: * enforce a TinyMCE project only * create branches like other projects (4.7.x-1.0, 5.x-1.0, 5.x-2.0) * make those 3 guys work together. It does not make sense to have 3 separate (but similar) projects in the community.

And, no, I do not agree with Dries when he says "The best module will usually win, and the other module will fade away". In this particular case, "beginners" will only be confused and say: "which one should I choose? I need a feature from one of them, but the other is much more secure? In which one should I give some help?"

My vote is for the merge of TinyMCE and TinyMCE Plus, remove of Moxie. Deploy a stable 4.7 version for 5.x, and create a group where all ideas should be discussed for a 5.x (and 6.x) roadmap.

If this needs a core developer intervention! So be it!

Regards, Fernando Silva

On 2/15/07, Boris Mann <boris@bryght.com> wrote:

...

So, Drupal-Id is back over at TinyMCE Plus. And the TinyMCE javascripts are checked into CVS -- http://cvs.drupal.org/viewcvs/drupal/contributions/modules/tinymce_plus/incl...

So, I'm pretty confused as to where we are now * TinyMCE Plus, Drupal-Id back doing ??? * TinyMCE -- confusion, although I *think* we got agreement on 5--1.x as evolution of 4.7 code, and 5--2.x as the newer "compact" code with less UI -- Kevin as main owner * Moxie -- 4.7 evolution, Allie as lead, can probably go away if 5--1.x branch on "main" TinyMCE is OK

This sucks :(

-- Boris Mann Vancouver 778-896-2747 San Francisco 415-367-3595 Skype borismann http://www.bryght.com

I really do not like the idea of different and conflicting versions of the same project being maintained in different releases by different teams. Either moxie becomes what tinymce was, and let drupal-id.com do his his thing with what is now tinymce and tinymce plus, or we talk him into focusing on one or the other of those latter two. This forking of the same project by release will only confuse users and will be a support nightmare.

On 2/15/07, Boris Mann <boris@bryght.com> wrote:

On 2/15/07, Khalid Baheyeldin <kb@2bits.com> wrote:

...

I really do not like the idea of different and conflicting versions of the same project being maintained in different releases by different teams.

You mean kind of like Drupal core is today?

Not quite a correct analogy. The Drupal core team does not "fork" Drupal in different directions, and the version numbers indicate features + API compatibility. Someone who was using tinymce 4.7 and happens to upgrade to tinymce 5.x-1.x will get a big surprise over 5.x-1.1 for example. The migration path may be totally broken.

Either moxie becomes what tinymce was, and let drupal-id.com do his his

...

thing with what is now tinymce and tinymce plus, or we talk him into focusing on one or the other of those latter two.

Did I mention Drupal-ID is out of the equation? In the end, there can be only one (/cue Highlander theme music).

Can't remember the music on that one, but Sir Sean was awesome. But, if drupal-id.com is out (I assume "out" means you guys leave him a sandbox on 5.x-1.x, and go with 5.x-2.x), then what is the fuss about? He can still commit to your branch if he wants to, unless he is banned, and I don't think we want to that (at least not now).

This forking of the same project by release will only confuse users and will

...

be a support nightmare.

But that's our problem as maintainers, not yours. Forking by project is probably worse.

What about the users who will download tinymce. Note to other potential commenters: unless you are signing up to help

maintain TinyMCE, it's Allie, myself, Steve, and Kevin hashing this out (publicly, no less :P).

Sorry for interfering, but I am concerned about features and upgrade path from older tinymce versions, and about user confusion. Should I hold off commenting until the team has a plan? Feel free to correct the misconceptions I (or others) have. -- 2bits.com http://2bits.com Drupal development, customization and consulting.

On 2/15/07, Boris Mann <boris@bryght.com> wrote:

On 2/15/07, Khalid Baheyeldin <kb@2bits.com> wrote:

...

...

You mean kind of like Drupal core is today?

Not quite a correct analogy. The Drupal core team does not "fork" Drupal in different directions, and the version numbers indicate features + API compatibility.

Blah blah. Try not to be pedantic.

I don't see how this is pedantic.

Someone who was using tinymce 4.7 and happens to upgrade to tinymce

...

5.x-1.x will get a big surprise over 5.x-1.1 for example. The migration path may be totally broken.

And that's what documentation can fix. "If you are upgrading from 4.7, are running multisite, and want to edit button layouts through a GUI, use 1.x

...

Should I hold off commenting until the team has a plan?

Drupal-ID is going to get removed from commit access on the TinyMCE module. He/she/whatever is already (again) committing to TinyMCE Plus.

That is the answer to the whole matter. I've explained "the plan" several times now:

* Kevin R "head" maintainer -- currently working on 5.x-2 * Allie + Steve on 4.7 evolution path on 5.x-1 * convergence and free ponies for everyone in some future tag

And again...Khalid, unless you are going to sign up to maintain, that's pretty much it from my POV.

OK (list) mom ... -- 2bits.com http://2bits.com Drupal development, customization and consulting.

As an intermediate Drupal user and beginner developer, I thought my opinion might be worth something, if only to prevent demoralization of developments that have been a great help to the community, and give a different "user" perspective. As a developer who needs WYSIWYG editor features for current projects, but who absolutely depends on "4.7 classic" TinyMCE features, like being able to set the default settings to off, and turn on the WYSIWYG editor when I want to, but on the other hand allowing other roles to have it on all the time, I must say that the 5.1 changes blew me away. It should have been a branch. Of course I immediately downloaded the "4.7 classic" patch, but... I felt very uncomfortable using patches in real world projects (painted into a corner on automated updates, etc.). I understood the delay, particularly if there was a problem with flooding and global warming, and even if it was a problem of Drupal-id being chronically open source community autistic and unwilling to be aware of his/her impact on the community. I agreed that nothing should be done hastily. I had confidence (and still do) that the Drupal community will eventually handle this intelligently, and that after a couple of months it will be resolved (still think that). The start of the Moxie project was a godsend, I want people to understand that: it allowed for a proper project to be used, more official, more secure than the previous patch. And it provided a solution satisfying a dire need while we all be patient with whatever it was that was going on behind the scenes. With Moxie, I could say: well, at least I have a dependable solution, it's official, it's secure. Creating Moxie was a great move: scores of people have real projects to maintain, today. Now, I am confident that common sense and plain old refactoring will solve things, now that all the info is available and the rules of the game are crystal clear: - There should only be a single TinyMCE project - 5.x.1 should be what Moxie is now, and place redirect info on Moxie project for a period of time so people don't get confused. Now. A simple "if you want roles and WYSIWYG toggle features, download 5.x.1" to as a guide to the perplexed. - 5.x.2 should be the fork (for that is what it is), totally allowable. TinyMCEplus should be forcibly discontinued. A single sentence on the project page explaining the features of the fork "No need to screw around with roles and toggles, just plug in and play... great!". But no fork with another project name. Imagine if someone wanted to do a fork of Views, and we have a ViewsMinus, then another person wants to do a fork of Tagadelic, but without the cloud, and call it TagadelicPlus. Ridiculous. Make all the branches you want, as long as you document it clearly; and if you don't someone else should. - 5.x.3 should be for anyone with any other bright ideas. - The Drupal leadership should intervene NOW to do this. Let's face it, like all open source projects, this is a meritocracy, not a "democracy", although it is guided by democratic principles (to a fault I would say). It certainly cannot be a free-for-all, and from what I see never has been. But this act needs to be cleaned up as soon as possible. It seems to be atypical. - Up till now, good people have spent a lot of their valuable time doing a very reasonable job trying to provide what is needed and taken a series of steps to do so. It's all been good. But now, we have all the info we need, and the rules seem clear. I say the Drupal core development team should act swiftly now and enforce the already created consensus on allowing different feature paths on different branches on a single project. Victor Kane http://awebfactory.com.ar (updating to 5.x as soon as there is an upgrade path for project/project issue, of which I make heavy use. I understand dww is on holiday, bless him! We must help him when he gets back) On 2/15/07, Allie Micka <allie@pajunas.com> wrote:

On Feb 15, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Boris Mann wrote:

I've explained "the plan" several times now: * Kevin R "head" maintainer -- currently working on 5.x-2 * Allie + Steve on 4.7 evolution path on 5.x-1 * convergence and free ponies for everyone in some future tag

I think it's going to be confusing and problematic to manage the issue queue and overall development on two discrete branches of the same project. Since TinyMCE plus is already in motion, it would probably be better to move the 5.x-2 stuff there. That's all I'm going to say on that one though, and I'll go with whatever flow flows.

I'll lend a hand where I can, but I have to reiterate that all this vitriol and melodrama is a great big giant turn-off that makes me feel disinclined to do much more than I have already done.

Thanks though Boris, for keeping this moving along.

Allie Micka pajunas interactive, inc. http://www.pajunas.com

scalable web hosting and open source strategies