TinyMCE Plus -- TinyMCE javascripts checked into CVS

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

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

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 <borisbryght.com> wrote:
> So, Drupal-Id is back over at TinyMCE Plus. And the
TinyMCE
> javascripts are checked into CVS --
> http://cvs.dr
upal.org/viewcvs/drupal/contributions/modules/tinymce_plus/i
ncludes/jscripts/tiny_mce/
>
> 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'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.ptgmail.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 <borisbryght.com> wrote:
> > So, Drupal-Id is back over at TinyMCE Plus. And
the TinyMCE
> > javascripts are checked into CVS --
> > http://cvs.dr
upal.org/viewcvs/drupal/contributions/modules/tinymce_plus/i
ncludes/jscripts/tiny_mce/
> >
> > 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
> >
>

On 2/15/07, Kevin Reynen <kreynengmail.com> wrote:

> 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 think we're pretty much set with having per-tag
maintainers. It
would be great if you could be the "owner" of the
TinyMCE project
node, maintain the 5.2 tag, and have Allie / Steve maintain
the 5.1
branch.

Let's just settle on that and never speak of these dark
times again :P

Ideally, we can converge on best practices going forward
(5.3, The Reunion Tag).

> 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.

Err....no, there was no name calling: there were clear
points of view
why the existing features HAD to be editable through the web
UI --
from ease of use to multisite compatability.

> 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.

He/She/whatever is out. Gerhard removed the JS files from
TinyMCE plus.

> 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?

borismann on Skype, or call me. But I think we've got it
settled if
you're OK with this. BTW -- thanks for taking the time for
this long
write up.

For those playing along at home, check out nedjo's jQuery
clean up
patch for TinyMCE -- http://drupal.org/node/
118747

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

On 2/15/07, Khalid Baheyeldin <kb2bits.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?

> 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).

> 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.

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).


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

On 2/15/07, Khalid Baheyeldin <kb2bits.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.

> 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.

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.

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