Elgg as a composer dependency for 2.0

I have an outstanding pull request I need feedback on. This addresses my biggest painpoint with Elgg at this point.

https://github.com/Elgg/Elgg/pull/8431#issuecomment-115400232

In particular, I need confirmation that people are OK with the feature for 2.0 (i.e. is anyone inclined to block this even if I iron out the remaining Travis failures? Any major reason not to do this that I'm blind to?).

It does two basic things:

- allow installing elgg at vendor/elgg/elgg instead of root of web app
- if that is done, use root directory for site-specific modifications

There are some bc implications for plugins that use elgg_get_root_path and/or CONFIG->path to access core's filesystem directly. And we need to decide on what to do with core plugins.

This could also affect our release scripts/process slightly so it'd be good to get this approved and checked in so I can make sure that process stays smooth for 2.0.

Anyways, feedback appreciated. Elgg 2.x is coming so soon! I'm really excited about a lot of the improvements we've made, but this is definitely a remaining sore spot that would have to wait until 3.0 if it doesn't get checked in soon. I would hate to see that happen.

  • The semver spec didn't say anything about that. In fact it has no formal definition for any pre-releases, so we're kind of free to make it up as we go.

    I consider alpha to mean we have remaining agreed upon breaking changes yet to implement, but that these are limited so we cannot indefinitely delay the release by adding more and more breaking changes.

    Beta to me means there are known bugs blocking the final release.

    Release candidate means there are no known bugs blocking the release and if none are reported within a given time limit then that version can become the final release without modification.

Feedback and Planning

Feedback and Planning

Discussions about the past, present, and future of Elgg and this community site.