Plone

On 17 March 2012 18:47, Vitaliy Podoba <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
> 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

On 03/17/2012 07:47 PM, Vitaliy Podoba wrote:
> 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.stevens@...   ***   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

On 17 March 2012 20:52, Guido Stevens <guido.stevens@...> wrote:
> 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

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!
On Mar 17, 2012 2:53 PM, "Guido Stevens" <guido.stevens@...> wrote:

> On 03/17/2012 07:47 PM, Vitaliy Podoba wrote:
> > 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.stevens@...   ***   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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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-developers@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
>

Yeah, to be honest, personally I don't feel this is a large enough
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


On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Nathan Van Gheem <vangheem@...> wrote:
> 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!
>
> On Mar 17, 2012 2:53 PM, "Guido Stevens" <guido.stevens@...> wrote:
>>
>> On 03/17/2012 07:47 PM, Vitaliy Podoba wrote:
>> > 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.stevens@...   ***   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

On 17 March 2012 21:04, Nathan Van Gheem <vangheem@...> 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.

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

Why not a plip to allow site administrators to choose whether, in document
byline,

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)

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Malthe Borch <mborch@...> wrote:

> On 17 March 2012 21:04, Nathan Van Gheem <vangheem@...> 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.
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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-developers@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
>



-- 
Thomas Desvenain

Téléphone : 09 51 37 35 18

> 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.

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.

Il 18/03/2012 09:01, Malthe Borch ha scritto:
> On 17 March 2012 21:04, Nathan Van Gheem<vangheem@...>  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.

On 19 March 2012 09:52, Yuri <yurj@...> wrote:
> Il 18/03/2012 09:01, Malthe Borch ha scritto:
>> On 17 March 2012 21:04, Nathan Van Gheem<vangheem@...>  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

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

Regards,
Vitaliy Podoba

On 19 March 2012 12:33, Vitaliy Podoba <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
> 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

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:38:58 +0000, Laurence Rowe <l@...> 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 :)


-- 
email sent from notmuch.vim plugin

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.

On 21 March 2012 09:00, Vitaliy Podoba <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
> 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

Anthony Gerrard <anthonygerrard@...> writes:

> 
> On 21 March 2012 09:00, Vitaliy Podoba <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
> > 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

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.

On 03/21/2012 11:32 AM, Vitaliy Podoba wrote:
>> I thought the effective date is the real publication date?
>
> 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.

I thought this was gracefully covered in your original proposal:
"Published xx, modified yy".

:*CU#
-- 
***   Guido A.J. Stevens        ***   tel: +31.43.3618933    ***
***   guido.stevens@...   ***   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

Laurence Rowe <l@...> writes:

> On 19 March 2012 12:33, Vitaliy Podoba
> <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
>> 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.

Ditto, please don't PLIP this, just do it.

Ross

I don't agree with this bit

"Publication date will be taken from last 'publish' workflow
transition date, instead of using Effective Date field"

I have real experience of users wanting to manually override the
publication date displayed on news articles

On 7 April 2012 21:28, Ross Patterson <me@...> wrote:
> Laurence Rowe <l@...> writes:
>
>> On 19 March 2012 12:33, Vitaliy Podoba
>> <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Ditto, please don't PLIP this, just do it.
>
> Ross
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second.
> Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You.
> Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2
> _______________________________________________
> Plone-developers mailing list
> Plone-developers@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Anthony Gerrard
<anthonygerrard@...:

> I don't agree with this bit
>
> "Publication date will be taken from last 'publish' workflow
> transition date, instead of using Effective Date field"
>
> I have real experience of users wanting to manually override the
> publication date displayed on news articles
>

+1 I have such experience too

and don't forget this have to work with workflows where publication can be
done with an other transition than 'publish'


>
> On 7 April 2012 21:28, Ross Patterson <me@...> wrote:
> > Laurence Rowe <l@...> writes:
> >
> >> On 19 March 2012 12:33, Vitaliy Podoba
> >> <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >
> > Ditto, please don't PLIP this, just do it.
> >
> > Ross
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second.
> > Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You.
> > Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE!
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2
> > _______________________________________________
> > Plone-developers mailing list
> > Plone-developers@...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
> monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second
> resolution app monitoring today. Free.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Plone-developers mailing list
> Plone-developers@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
>



-- 
Thomas Desvenain

Téléphone : 09 51 37 35 18

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:02 AM, thomas desvenain
<thomas.desvenain@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Anthony Gerrard <anthonygerrard@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> I don't agree with this bit
>>
>> "Publication date will be taken from last 'publish' workflow
>> transition date, instead of using Effective Date field"
>>
>> I have real experience of users wanting to manually override the
>> publication date displayed on news articles
>
>
> +1 I have such experience too

+1 My 2 cents are: use the workflow transition date only if 'effective
date' is none


>
> and don't forget this have to work with workflows where publication can be
> done with an other transition than 'publish'
>
>>
>>
>> On 7 April 2012 21:28, Ross Patterson <me@...> wrote:
>> > Laurence Rowe <l@...> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 19 March 2012 12:33, Vitaliy Podoba
>> >> <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
>> >>> 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.
>> >
>> > Ditto, please don't PLIP this, just do it.
>> >
>> > Ross
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second.
>> > Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You.
>> > Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE!
>> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Plone-developers mailing list
>> > Plone-developers@...
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
>> monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second
>> resolution app monitoring today. Free.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Plone-developers mailing list
>> Plone-developers@...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Desvenain
>
> Téléphone : 09 51 37 35 18
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
> monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second
> resolution app monitoring today. Free.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Plone-developers mailing list
> Plone-developers@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
>



-- 
Best Regards,

Christian Ledermann

Nairobi - Kenya
Mobile : +254 702978914

<*)))>{

If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left,
you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If
you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both.

1) Don’t drive species to extinction

2) Don’t destroy a habitat that species rely on.

3) Don’t change the climate in ways that will result in the above.

}<(((*>

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:24, Anthony Gerrard <anthonygerrard@...> wrote:
> "Publication date will be taken from last 'publish' workflow
> transition date, instead of using Effective Date field"
>
> I have real experience of users wanting to manually override the
> publication date displayed on news articles

Indeed. The effective date is automatically set to the date of first
publish if it is not set at that time, as well, so there is no reason
to prefer the workflow date over the effective date other than to make
it impossible for end-users to adjust the date manually.

-- 
Martijn Pieters

Hi,

In this case, wouldn't it be preferable to get the last workflow 
transition date (regardless of the state), the last modification date 
and then choose the most recent one ?
This would help keeping an updated effective date.

However, I do agree that manual override is often an issue. Perhaps 
would it be interesting to allow the user to choose between update 
methods ('Classic' : the way Plone does it, 'Latest update': the date 
the last workflow transition occured OR the latest content update, 
'Manual' : uses a datepicker to allow a manual override).

Regards,



Le 10/04/2012 12:23, Martijn Pieters a écrit :
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:24, Anthony Gerrard<anthonygerrard@...>  wrote:
>> "Publication date will be taken from last 'publish' workflow
>> transition date, instead of using Effective Date field"
>>
>> I have real experience of users wanting to manually override the
>> publication date displayed on news articles
> Indeed. The effective date is automatically set to the date of first
> publish if it is not set at that time, as well, so there is no reason
> to prefer the workflow date over the effective date other than to make
> it impossible for end-users to adjust the date manually.
>


--

On Apr 10, 2012, at 11:02 AM, thomas desvenain wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Anthony Gerrard <anthonygerrard@...> wrote:
> I don't agree with this bit
> 
> "Publication date will be taken from last 'publish' workflow
> transition date, instead of using Effective Date field"
> 
> I have real experience of users wanting to manually override the
> publication date displayed on news articles
> 
> +1 I have such experience too
> 
> and don't forget this have to work with workflows where publication can be done with an other transition than 'publish'

Do you mean it's better to rely on target transition state = 'published' rather than transition name?

>  
> 
> On 7 April 2012 21:28, Ross Patterson <me@...> wrote:
> > Laurence Rowe <l@...> writes:
> >
> >> On 19 March 2012 12:33, Vitaliy Podoba
> >> <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >
> > Ditto, please don't PLIP this, just do it.
> >
> > Ross
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second.
> > Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You.
> > Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE!
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2
> > _______________________________________________
> > Plone-developers mailing list
> > Plone-developers@...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
> monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second
> resolution app monitoring today. Free.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Plone-developers mailing list
> Plone-developers@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Desvenain
> 
> Téléphone : 09 51 37 35 18
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
> monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second 
> resolution app monitoring today. Free.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev_______________________________________________
> Plone-developers mailing list
> Plone-developers@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers

On 2012-4-10 16:43, Julien Stegle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In this case, wouldn't it be preferable to get the last workflow
> transition date (regardless of the state), the last modification date
> and then choose the most recent one ?

No: sometimes people want to backdate.

Wichert.

-- 
Wichert Akkerman <wichert@...>   It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/                  It is hard to make things simple.

I think so... but i think it should also work with documents without
'published' state... and even without any workflow.

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Vitaliy Podoba <vitaliypodoba@...:

>
> On Apr 10, 2012, at 11:02 AM, thomas desvenain wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Anthony Gerrard <anthonygerrard@...
> > wrote:
>
>> I don't agree with this bit
>>
>> "Publication date will be taken from last 'publish' workflow
>> transition date, instead of using Effective Date field"
>>
>> I have real experience of users wanting to manually override the
>> publication date displayed on news articles
>>
>
> +1 I have such experience too
>
>
> and don't forget this have to work with workflows where publication can be
> done with an other transition than 'publish'
>
>
> Do you mean it's better to rely on target transition state = 'published'
> rather than transition name?
>
>
>
>>
>> On 7 April 2012 21:28, Ross Patterson <me@...> wrote:
>> > Laurence Rowe <l@...> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 19 March 2012 12:33, Vitaliy Podoba
>> >> <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
>> >>> 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.
>> >
>> > Ditto, please don't PLIP this, just do it.
>> >
>> > Ross
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second.
>> > Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You.
>> > Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE!
>> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Plone-developers mailing list
>> > Plone-developers@...
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
>> monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second
>> resolution app monitoring today. Free.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Plone-developers mailing list
>> Plone-developers@...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Desvenain
>
> Téléphone : 09 51 37 35 18
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
> monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second
> resolution app monitoring today. Free.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev_______________________________________________
> Plone-developers mailing list
> Plone-developers@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
> monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second
> resolution app monitoring today. Free.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Plone-developers mailing list
> Plone-developers@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
>
>


-- 
Thomas Desvenain

Téléphone : 09 51 37 35 18

Hm, then I'm wondering what'd be the criteria for "published" object? Set of permissions?
AFAIK: workflow state/transition name and set of permissions are the only criteria how we define whether object is published or
not.

On Apr 10, 2012, at 8:53 PM, thomas desvenain wrote:

> I think so... but i think it should also work with documents without 'published' state... and even without any workflow.
> 
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Vitaliy Podoba <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
> 
> On Apr 10, 2012, at 11:02 AM, thomas desvenain wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Anthony Gerrard <anthonygerrard@...> wrote:
>> I don't agree with this bit
>> 
>> "Publication date will be taken from last 'publish' workflow
>> transition date, instead of using Effective Date field"
>> 
>> I have real experience of users wanting to manually override the
>> publication date displayed on news articles
>> 
>> +1 I have such experience too
>> 
>> and don't forget this have to work with workflows where publication can be done with an other transition than 'publish'
> 
> Do you mean it's better to rely on target transition state = 'published' rather than transition name?
> 
>>  
>> 
>> On 7 April 2012 21:28, Ross Patterson <me@...> wrote:
>> > Laurence Rowe <l@...> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 19 March 2012 12:33, Vitaliy Podoba
>> >> <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
>> >>> 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.
>> >
>> > Ditto, please don't PLIP this, just do it.
>> >
>> > Ross
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second.
>> > Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You.
>> > Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE!
>> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Plone-developers mailing list
>> > Plone-developers@...
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
>> monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second
>> resolution app monitoring today. Free.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Plone-developers mailing list
>> Plone-developers@...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Thomas Desvenain
>> 
>> Téléphone : 09 51 37 35 18
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
>> monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second 
>> resolution app monitoring today. Free.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev_______________________________________________
>> Plone-developers mailing list
>> Plone-developers@...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
> monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second
> resolution app monitoring today. Free.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Plone-developers mailing list
> Plone-developers@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Desvenain
> 
> Téléphone : 09 51 37 35 18

Yes, eventually I also support this approach when we use transition date only if there is no effective date set.

On Apr 10, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Martijn Pieters wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:24, Anthony Gerrard <anthonygerrard@...> wrote:
>> "Publication date will be taken from last 'publish' workflow
>> transition date, instead of using Effective Date field"
>> 
>> I have real experience of users wanting to manually override the
>> publication date displayed on news articles
> 
> Indeed. The effective date is automatically set to the date of first
> publish if it is not set at that time, as well, so there is no reason
> to prefer the workflow date over the effective date other than to make
> it impossible for end-users to adjust the date manually.
> 
> -- 
> Martijn Pieters
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
> monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second 
> resolution app monitoring today. Free.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Plone-developers mailing list
> Plone-developers@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 19:59, Vitaliy Podoba <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
> Yes, eventually I also support this approach when we use transition date only if there is no effective date set.

The effective date is always set; it is set explicitly on publish if
not set before.

-- 
Martijn Pieters

On Apr 12, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Martijn Pieters wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 19:59, Vitaliy Podoba <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
>> Yes, eventually I also support this approach when we use transition date only if there is no effective date set.
> 
> The effective date is always set; it is set explicitly on publish if
> not set before.

Yes, effective date is set during first time publication. Though, it's not set on next publications (cases when object is
temporarily retracted and then published again). So one would need to keep that date in sync manually or unset to
use workflow transition date.

> 
> -- 
> Martijn Pieters

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 15:29, Vitaliy Podoba <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
> Yes, effective date is set during first time publication. Though, it's not set on next publications (cases when object is
> temporarily retracted and then published again). So one would need to keep that date in sync manually or unset to
> use workflow transition date.

Note that that's a policy decision; some sites want it one way, others
the other way, as it depends on your publishing patterns.

A workflow transition event handler that updates the effective date
field is not hard to write if you want to have the publication date
updated every time you transition to the publish state.

I still think that it should not be the default, however, as such a
event handler would not be able to distinguish between a manually set
date and one set automatically.

-- 
Martijn Pieters

On Apr 12, 2012, at 5:52 PM, Martijn Pieters wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 15:29, Vitaliy Podoba <vitaliypodoba@...> wrote:
>> Yes, effective date is set during first time publication. Though, it's not set on next publications (cases when object is
>> temporarily retracted and then published again). So one would need to keep that date in sync manually or unset to
>> use workflow transition date.
> 
> Note that that's a policy decision; some sites want it one way, others
> the other way, as it depends on your publishing patterns.

Exactly. That's why I started this conversation. So, even before starting the simplest approach implementation (inserting
effective date into template) I'd prefer to wait for framework team decision. 

If we stick with simpler solution then I'd do it straight away, if we need tweaks with workflow and transitions then I'll
do it as a part of PLIP process.

> 
> A workflow transition event handler that updates the effective date
> field is not hard to write if you want to have the publication date
> updated every time you transition to the publish state.
> 
> I still think that it should not be the default, however, as such a
> event handler would not be able to distinguish between a manually set
> date and one set automatically.
> 
> -- 
> Martijn Pieters