[JENKINS-31153] Rename Workflow to Pipeline #296

recena · 2016-01-11T11:35:06Z

Screenshots

@reviewbybees

… the user interface

ghost · 2016-01-11T11:39:01Z

This pull request originates from a CloudBees employee. At CloudBees, we require that all pull requests be reviewed by other CloudBees employees before we seek to have the change accepted. If you want to learn more about our process please see this explanation.

oleg-nenashev · 2016-01-11T11:49:53Z

👎 on this pull request till there is an agreement with the community on renaming.

oleg-nenashev · 2016-01-11T12:06:42Z

Just to clarify:

There are plugins with similar names: (Build Pipeline, Delivery Pipeline, OpenShift Pipeline)
The renaming causes conflicts and may be very confusing
At least owners of potentially impacted plugins should agree with the renaming IMHO

recena · 2016-01-11T20:40:25Z

@oleg-nenashev I'm maintainer of one of them 😄

oleg-nenashev · 2016-01-13T16:00:14Z

Removed the @reviewbybees bug according to the inputs

jglick · 2016-01-13T16:01:22Z

...gator/src/test/java/org/jenkinsci/plugins/workflow/cps/global/WorkflowLibRepositoryTest.java

@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ public void userDefinedGlobalVariable() throws Exception {
                WorkflowJob p = jenkins.createProject(WorkflowJob.class, "p");

                p.setDefinition(new CpsFlowDefinition(
-                        "acmeVar.hello('Workflow');" +
+                        "acmeVar.hello('Pipeline');" +


OK…not user-visible text, does not really matter, but fine.

jglick · 2016-01-13T16:05:50Z

🐛 missing updates to README.md, TUTORIAL.md, etc.

🐛 missing updates to plugin display names in pom.xmls.

recena · 2016-01-13T16:44:33Z

@jglick I wanted to separate it in two differents PR:

Source code modifications related to UI
Documentation and Maven configuration

Do you agree?

jglick · 2016-01-13T16:48:10Z

Do you agree?

No. Certainly the pom.xml updates are logically part of this: they are source code modifications related to the UI (in this case that shown in Plugin Manager).

And if you are going to file a renaming PR in the repo, you might as well just finish and rename the usages in Markdown files too.

recena · 2016-01-13T16:54:48Z

I don't know why I ask it...

amuniz · 2016-01-13T17:18:07Z

COMPATIBILITY.md

@@ -271,15 +271,15 @@ You may override the new `guessBrowser`, so that scripts do not need to specify

 If you have a commit trigger, generally an `UnprotectedRootAction` which schedules builds, it will need a few changes.
 Use `SCMTriggerItem` rather than the deprecated `SCMedItem`; use `SCMTriggerItem.SCMTriggerItems.asSCMTriggerItem` rather than checking `instanceof`.
-Its `getSCMs` method can be used to enumerate configured SCMs, which in the case of a workflow will be those run in the last build.
+Its `getSCMs` method can be used to enumerate configured SCMs, which in the case of a Pipeline will be those run in the last build.


This one would be lowercase IMO

kzantow · 2016-01-13T18:47:53Z

job/src/main/resources/index.jelly

@@ -25,5 +25,5 @@ THE SOFTWARE.

 <?jelly escape-by-default='true'?>
 <div>
-    Defines a new job type for workflows and provides their generic user interface.
+    Defines a new job type for pipelines and provides their generic user interface.


But, we have decided to use pipelines when mentions to generic pipelines. Right?

@recena but ... this is specific to the Pipeline plugin, no? "define a new job type for pipelines..."

I think Manuel is right here: Pipeline creates pipelines. At least it's consistent with the naming scheme from Workflow. Maybe everywhere we talk about pipeline-as-created-by-Pipeline we call it a "Pipeline job" or slightly more clunky "pipeline-job".

@kwhetstone I'm indifferent on a many of these. Though it could really go either way, in this case we're not defining a job type to create an arbitrary pipeline, we're specifically creating a Jenkins Pipeline.
Although "Pipeline creates pipelines", referring to specific items that the plugin creates, uses, or is otherwise directly tied to it should be referred to as "Pipeline(s)", even though they might also describe a generic pipeline. I didn't bug or ant this, though; it is not that important. :)

kzantow · 2016-01-13T18:51:09Z

@recena Agree with Jesse, add pom.xml to this, and it looks good.

recena · 2016-01-13T18:55:40Z

@kzantow It seems @jglick is always right ;)

recena · 2016-01-13T19:20:19Z

@jglick

[INFO] Pipeline: Parent ................................... SUCCESS [  9.038 s]
[INFO] Pipeline: Step API ................................. SUCCESS [ 14.232 s]
[INFO] Pipeline: API ...................................... SUCCESS [  9.126 s]
[INFO] Pipeline: Execution Support ........................ SUCCESS [ 10.100 s]
[INFO] Pipeline: Basic Steps .............................. SUCCESS [  8.097 s]
[INFO] Pipeline: Durable Task Step ........................ SUCCESS [  7.136 s]
[INFO] Pipeline: SCM Step ................................. SUCCESS [  9.484 s]
[INFO] Pipeline: Groovy CPS Execution ..................... SUCCESS [ 27.030 s]
[INFO] Pipeline: Global Shared Library for CPS pipeline ... SUCCESS [  8.269 s]
[INFO] Pipeline: Job ...................................... SUCCESS [  7.291 s]
[INFO] Pipeline ........................................... SUCCESS [ 13.808 s]
[INFO] Pipeline: Multibranch .............................. SUCCESS [  8.356 s]
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] BUILD SUCCESS
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Total time: 02:15 min
[INFO] Finished at: 2016-01-13T20:17:49+01:00
[INFO] Final Memory: 101M/552M
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------

To me it is weird to see Pipeline alone but...

kzantow · 2016-01-13T19:27:47Z

🐝 looks good to me afaik, without self-grepping the code :)

recena · 2016-01-13T19:32:24Z

@kzantow I have to dive deeply but it is a first approach

recena · 2016-01-13T19:59:08Z

kwhetstone · 2016-01-14T04:50:30Z

@recena I agree that it's weird seeing "Pipeline" by itself, but it must have been like that for "Workflow" when it was first released as well! 🐝

jglick · 2016-01-14T17:33:34Z

README.md

 Again dependencies will be pulled in automatically, including all the OSS plugins.

 # News & questions

 * [Changelog](CHANGES.md)
-* [jenkins-workflow tag](http://stackoverflow.com/tags/jenkins-workflow) on StackOverflow
+* [jenkins-pipeline tag](http://stackoverflow.com/tags/jenkins-pipeline) on StackOverflow


🐛 do not change this now—there is no such tag yet. If and when that rename happens, I will update this line of course.

The initial idea was to do the StackOverflow renaming too.

recena · 2016-01-14T20:29:38Z

Note that examples like this were updated with new output format.

jglick · 2016-01-15T15:38:12Z

🐝

jglick · 2016-01-15T15:57:03Z

Actually one more request: plugin summaries (<description>/index.jelly) and the TopLevelItemDescriptor summary view should explain parenthetically that the plugin was formerly known as Workflow. Otherwise existing users upgrading could be pretty confused.

jglick · 2016-01-15T20:33:36Z

README.md

-* [JIRA](https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+JENKINS+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+%28component+%3D+workflow-plugin+OR+labels+in+%28workflow%29%29+ORDER+BY+component+ASC,+key+DESC&mode=hide) (file issues in the `workflow-plugin` component, or other components with the `workflow` label)
-* [User list discussions](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/jenkinsci-users/workflow) (mention `workflow` in the subject)
-* [#JenkinsWorkflow](https://twitter.com/hashtag/JenkinsWorkflow) on Twitter
+* [JIRA](https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+JENKINS+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+%28component+%3D+workflow-plugin+OR+labels+in+%28workflow%29%29+ORDER+BY+component+ASC,+key+DESC&mode=hide) (file issues in the `workflow-plugin` component, or other components with the `pipeline` label)


🐛 for now we are still using the workflow label (TBD about its rename). Anyway the text now does not match the query URL.

jglick · 2016-01-15T20:57:36Z

🐝

svanoort · 2016-01-15T21:57:54Z

aggregator/pom.xml

@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
    </parent>
    <artifactId>workflow-aggregator</artifactId>
    <packaging>hpi</packaging>
-    <name>Workflow: Aggregator</name>
+    <name>Pipeline (formerly known as Workflow)</name>


This does not seem right to me, but that is a 🐜

svanoort · 2016-01-15T21:59:59Z

🐝 - I have mixed feelings about having/not having parenthetical descriptions of renames, but this change seems fine.

recena · 2016-01-15T22:03:53Z

@svanoort This will be only along a short time.

recena · 2016-01-15T22:04:00Z

@reviewbybees done

[JENKINS-31153] Rename Workflow to Pipeline

[JENKINS-31153] Rename Workflow to Pipeline. All the display names in…

b91ba5c

… the user interface

[JENKINS-31153] One more label

259a070

recena changed the title ~~[JENKINS-31153] All the display names the user interface~~ [JENKINS-31153] Rename Workflow to Pipeline. All the display names the UI Jan 11, 2016

jglick reviewed Jan 13, 2016
View reviewed changes

[JENKINS-31153] Remove unrelated change

2146584

[JENKINS-31153] Renaming in docs

28aa2ea

amuniz reviewed Jan 13, 2016
View reviewed changes

[JENKINS-31153] Renaming in docs

d9e6b60

kzantow reviewed Jan 13, 2016
View reviewed changes

[JENKINS-31153] Renaming in docs

6cc4c31

[JENKINS-31153] Renaming in docs

130b1e1

[JENKINS-31153] Changing POM Module Name in all modules

178b74c

[JENKINS-31153] More references were replaced

e26b879

recena force-pushed the JENKINS-31153 branch from d85b790 to e26b879 Compare January 14, 2016 17:01

[JENKINS-31153] More references were replaced

e9785b2

jglick reviewed Jan 14, 2016
View reviewed changes

recena force-pushed the JENKINS-31153 branch from 6b9d256 to eec6a61 Compare January 14, 2016 20:19

[JENKINS-31153] @jglick's comments were addressed

9c41a4a

recena force-pushed the JENKINS-31153 branch from eec6a61 to 9c41a4a Compare January 14, 2016 20:43

jglick reviewed Jan 15, 2016
View reviewed changes

[JENKINS-31153] @jglick's suggestion was addressed

2ca9e66

recena force-pushed the JENKINS-31153 branch from 76c56a0 to 2ca9e66 Compare January 15, 2016 20:52

svanoort reviewed Jan 15, 2016
View reviewed changes

jglick added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 15, 2016

Merge pull request #296 from recena/JENKINS-31153

118b89e

[JENKINS-31153] Rename Workflow to Pipeline

jglick merged commit 118b89e into jenkinsci:master Jan 15, 2016

recena deleted the JENKINS-31153 branch January 15, 2016 22:05

jglick added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 15, 2016

[JENKINS-29326] [JENKINS-31153] Noting #271 and #296.

2f2efde

jglick mentioned this pull request Jan 19, 2016

[JENKINS-31153] More renames #314

Merged

recena mentioned this pull request Jan 19, 2016

[JENKINS-31153] Renamed a reference to workflow #313

Closed

jglick mentioned this pull request Jan 22, 2016

Remove “formerly known” text #319

Merged

[JENKINS-31153] Rename Workflow to Pipeline #296

[JENKINS-31153] Rename Workflow to Pipeline #296

Conversation

recena commented Jan 11, 2016

Screenshots

ghost commented Jan 11, 2016

oleg-nenashev commented Jan 11, 2016

oleg-nenashev commented Jan 11, 2016

recena commented Jan 11, 2016

oleg-nenashev commented Jan 13, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jglick commented Jan 13, 2016

recena commented Jan 13, 2016

jglick commented Jan 13, 2016

recena commented Jan 13, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kzantow commented Jan 13, 2016

recena commented Jan 13, 2016

recena commented Jan 13, 2016

kzantow commented Jan 13, 2016

recena commented Jan 13, 2016

recena commented Jan 13, 2016

kwhetstone commented Jan 14, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

recena commented Jan 14, 2016

jglick commented Jan 15, 2016

jglick commented Jan 15, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jglick commented Jan 15, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

svanoort commented Jan 15, 2016

recena commented Jan 15, 2016

recena commented Jan 15, 2016