All the "Related Topics" stuff in Main.SomeUserPage should be moved to UserViewTemplate

That way:

1. it does not need to get compiled down to a particular language at build time
2. other stuff can be added to the list without needing to edit masses of topics
3. the user does not get confused by crap they didn't write
4. the user cannot delete stuff they might need later

If there are no objections I will change UserViewTemplate and NewUserTemplate by the end of the week. I propose this should go in 4.0.2.

-- MC

Affects also Item1395

SVN 9256

-- MC

This does not work with PatternSkin, but is alright with classic. Perhaps an issue with templdef{helptext}?

-- SP

does develop.twiki.org not pick up updates to the Main web from SVN?

because Item1800 needs UserViewTemplate to update - and http://develop.twiki.org/~develop/cgi-bin/view/Main/UserViewTemplate?raw=on does not match http://svn.twiki.org:8181/svn/twiki/branches/TWikiRelease04x00/data/Main/UserViewTemplate.txt

-- MC

Reverting this on the grounds of consistent 4.0.2 release (this is still not in sync with PatternSkin).

-- SP

It was a problem with the tmpldef name I chose - I can only think patternskin defined the same name. I've factored it out into a simple INCLUDE, this has the advantage that the admin can readily change it.

[TWikiRelease04x00]$ svn commit -m "Item1800: a version that works with PatternSkin and adds a UserViewTemplateHelp.txt that admins can change" data/Main/UserViewTemplateHelp.txt data/Main/UserViewTemplate.txt data/TWiki/NewUserTemplate.txt Sending data/Main/UserViewTemplate.txt Adding data/Main/UserViewTemplateHelp.txt Sending data/TWiki/NewUserTemplate.txt Transmitting file data ... Committed revision 9412.

Tested with NatSkin and PatternSkin.

-- MC

When I register a new user I don't get the result I expect (i.e. no related links)? - Or am I just missing something completely?

http://merlin.lavrsen.dk/twiki/bin/view/Main/TestItem1800 is a user I just created, please inspect. Reverting once again, as release is any-time-now.

If data/Main/UserViewTemplateHelp.txt is meant to go into distribution, please add it to MANIFEST also.

Btw: If you are serious about "minor", you might want to check this into DEVELOP, and only merge after 4.0.2 (patch) is out?

- Don't forget to check if PatternSkin is broken currently, it's perfectly possible something fell off in the div-refactor.

-- SP

Since this is bouncing back and forth and the change is actually an enhancement and not a bug fix it should be checked into DEVELOP branch only.

It is very risky to make changes like these 2-3 days before a release.

If we get the remaining language translations in Sven may be able to release before the weekend. Not the time to experiment on TWiki4 branch. But DEVELOP is all open to experiments.

There is something I need to understand.

If we move text from the user topic to the template does this mean that

• Existing user topics with the same text show the text twice?
• The user cannot delete the text and create the home page he wants?
• What Wikiness is there in patronising what the user should have in his home topic?
• Even if the "crap they did not write is there" how will the user get less confused by editing a page and notice that the text he sees is actually not really there? I would get very confused by that personally.
• If I move or rename one of the links - do that get renamed in the template?

I am not convinced this is a good idea. If there is too much crap on the users homepage let us just remove it.

KJL

ISTM that if a TWiki developer wants a custom user page, he should modify NewUserTemplate. If you want to change the default NewUserTemplate to include a subtopic named, say NewUserRelatedTopics, fine. It does indeed include way too much "crap", but the fix to that is, as Kenneth says, remove the crap.

And I totally agree with Kenneth: definitely not for 4.0.2.

ML

This topic was lost from the lists due to not having a codebase field. Rediscovered 3/2/07. Just set it to "No Action" if it is dead.

CC

Ken says this is an enhancement, and I agree. AFAICT it's not confirmed that any change is required. So bouncing back to New state as well, as the analysis is clearly not complete.

CC

I am totally against the original proposal for the reasons I gave above. As far as I can tell only MC supported it.

Proposing to set it to No Actions Required. In fact that is what I do now. Slap my fingers if you disagree.

KJL

This is so old and confusing. Killing this for Foswiki. Someone reopen if you still want it.

-- GeorgeClark - 02 Jan 2015