forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] No new features into skins (was Re: [jira] Closed: (FOR-320) )
Date Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:42:53 GMT
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:01 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>>>On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:08 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
>>>>Thorsten, you closed the FOR-320 and do not apply the patch on skins.
>>>>Does that mean that we will not improve skins anymore ?
>>>I would not see any benefit from applying it to skins. ;-)
>>The patch already works for skins and there are many people already 
>>using skins. Views are not ready to replace skins yet (we will need pelt 
>>in views before that can happen). Please reopen the issue.
> You are as well admin and can reopen the issue (read on before you do).

Yes I know. But I don't want to go stamping on what you already did 
without understanding your reasoning, you never know I might agree with 
you when you explain it to me ;-)

> Adding *new features* to skins *do not* help to make views ready to
> replace skins. Did you thought about that? 

I agree that spending the time adding new features is not a good thing. 
However this patch already exists. as I said in my mail I agree that it 
would need to be made configurable, I'm not sure anyone will bother with 
that, I know I won't). Like I said in my original mail, all I am 
suggesting is leaving it open so that if a user wants this feature we 
can point them at the patch, or better still they will find it without 
asking questions on the lists. If the issue is closed they are unlikely 
to find it.

> ...and we *do not* need pelt in views, that is not true. Why do you mean
> that?

If you want people to adopt views I strongly recommend that we have a 
view that looks the same as pelt. Look at the number of sites on our 
example sites that use it. Most of those sites will will not switch to 
views unless at the point of switching their site looks the same as it 
does not. Then some will start playing with views and customising their 
sites look and feel because they will discover how easy it is.

Those who are not using pelt are, in most cases, using a customised 
version of it. If you provide a view that looks like pelt it will be 
much easier for them to recreate their own site in views. Therefore, 
they are more likely to migrate to views.

If you do not provide this migration route most existing users will 
stick with the deprecated skin for quite some time. There is no 
motivation to move from it since they are perfectly happy with what they 
have. The fact that it is cool, whizz bang technology and really easy to 
customise is irrelevant if they are happy with what they have.

If we want to bring our existing user base to views we have to make it 
very easy for them. This means, in my opinion, that we need a view that 
looks exactly like pelt.

> Anyway I am -1 to reopen this issue and apply it to skins because that
> means we have to add yet another property to the skinconf,...

I said reopen, not necessarily apply it, I agree with David that it 
would need to be configurable before we applied it and that involves 
spending time on it, which I agree is not a good thing, our dev time 
should go into views. However, the fact that we are deprecating the skin 
does not mean we should put contributions in a place where they will not 
be seen by existing users.


View raw message