What are we going to do about icons given we're stuck without the pro pack. For example the column sort icons are only available as part of the pro pack (basically everything that's outline with transparent centers are pro only)

See my poc on table sort. That has icons for this although I was planning on switching them for pure SVG when approved

What are we going to do about icons given we're stuck without the pro pack. For example the column sort icons are only available as part of the pro pack

@wilsonge Is is ok to use icons from thenounproject possibly? Me, myself I have a pro license where you don't have to add the attribution. But I am not sure if I can use it then for open source too. It would be then a svg of the icon. That would be great for the menu as we have a large range of icons that possibly fit better than a standard FA icon.

"By paying for a NounPro account, you get a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide right to use each icon you download as many times as you wish and in any medium, without having to credit the icon’s creator. This is because Noun Project pays royalties to creators each time their icon is downloaded."

As an open source project we should use open source icons

As an open source project we should use open source icons

I am confused... Is creative commons without attribution not open source? Can you tell me the difference to open source? @brianteeman

When you pay for them you get a royalty free licence. That is not the same as CC0

The original is CCBY - and that is also not open source?

But you want to use them under a different licence

It should be noted as well that with the (flawed) implementation of workflows the state columns with counts will be useless

Why? there is still the condition published, unpublished and trashed?

That's the problem with it. There doesn't have to be!

I can recommend to you to watch the presentation about workflows at JAB this year in cologne, its very well explained there how they work. The conditions are published, unpublished, trashed and archived.

Better to read the code, test the code or any of the many issue reports.

Better to read the code, test the code or any of the many issue reports.

Well, if you respect the people that wrote this huge improvement for joomla you should at least take some time to view the documentation of the feature. Instead of that you are posting here wrong statements like

That's the problem with it. There doesn't have to be!

and

It should be noted as well that with the (flawed) implementation of workflows the state columns with counts will be useless

It doesn't matter what the design specification of the feature is, or whether it is a subjective "huge improvement", or whether there is any documentation of the feature. From everything I have seen, the implementation of the feature is still critically broken.

Everyone loved the fact tags was added to core all those years ago. Anyone remember how broken its code was (and in some ways continues to be)? It doesn't matter how good the feature looks on paper or in the marketing material if the implementation is bad, and right now based on everything I've read (because I have not touched 4.0 in essence since workflows was merged) the implementation is bad.

The 4.0 branch is full of half complete features with a lot of broken things (the template and workflows being two of the obvious things at the moment). This is setting a massively bad precedent. The "major" features of the last three stable releases (fields, routing, privacy tools) did not merge until they were feature complete and most would generally call those features beta to release candidate quality (at a minimum) by the time they had merged, meaning there were some kinks to iron out but they were all usable.

The truth is harsh sometimes, but it has to be said. I'm not arguing whether workflows is a good or bad feature, but right now it is a distraction in a branch full of them and yet-another-roadblock to shipping a release whose work has been restarted three times over the last three years. Are we working on the next generation of a stable platform or vaporware?

@mbabker I was referring to the wrong statements that have been made by @brianteeman about the published / unpublished / trashed and archived conditions.

I based my statement on facts and not on intentions. Clearly unlike yourself I have spent significant time testing the workflows and identifying over 30 issues. Despite everything the workflow code is still sadly very far from a usable improvement. When submitted there was no archive and it took considerable effort to convince that there must be. It is still a fact that with the proposed code it is perfectly possible to have a site which has workflows without all the four states displayed on this view.

(hit wrong button)

@brianteeman You mistake states and conditions ... !!!

The columns do not show states (stages) but conditions of articles. It is thrue that the queries in the helper class musst be adapted, this is a simple code. But every article has one of the conditions as it is now.

I make no mistake but you can keep calling me a liar. Prove to me that every workflow will have all of those conditions.

I did not say this. I said that the columns show conditions. Every article has always one condition, no matter in which worfklow it is. Maybe he will never change the condition but be always unpublished or published. But this does not change anything at these columns in the overview

You mistake conditions and states as I am saying all the time. @brianteeman

No I make no mistake

Sorry for my bad English: you CONFUSE conditions and states @brianteeman

if some people who have already looked at code/presentation/docs/schema etc
still makes some missundestanding ect ..... this smells to me like a hole ....

state/stage/condition for me this means only a state machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-state_machine
wich is simply not

No mistake or confusion. As stated before and already reported as an issue it is perfectly possible to create a workflow that does not have all 4 conditions see #21525 #21527

@brianteeman - still there are this 4 conditions. if you don’t use them it’s ok but they are still the 4 conditions. And surprise surprise: I have some websites running with only published articles, no unpublished, no trashed, no archived. Does that mean it’s broken in 3.x already??? ?

i give up - unscribed and will refrain from commenting on your pr/issues - not wasting my time

@brianteeman I want to add a personal remark. I never called you a liar. Where did I say this? Please give a link. I always am polite and respectful against others.

@mbabker
We want a stable platform. As much as I see it is not stable at all and not because there are a few open issues with workflow.
Truth is harsh sometimes, this is right and my truth is: The Joomla team - all the voluteers contributing in Joomla - are working as much as they can. Eeryone makes mistakes.
But instead of collaboration I see running battles with variying scapegoats. At the moment it is workflow, it was webcomponents or backend template ot router or whatever.
Why do we not "all together" = Joomla!?

@chmst the comment was not addressed at you

It's hard to be "all together" when everyone is working against one another and there is no coordinated plan or effort. I've got a punch list of tasks to finish off for 4.0 that right now I'm not interested in touching for various reasons, some of those reasons being things are just flat out blocked by other work and some of those reasons boiling down to my time being better invested on so many other things than 4.0 architectural patches that will probably not get tested at all.

I'm not trying to make anyone or any effort out to be a "scapegoat", but fact is there is incomplete work that blocks getting other tasks done and we've bitten off far more than we can chew with the current state of 4.0 as it relates to getting a release roadmap planned and executed. Without stepping back and prioritizing efforts, the only progress that's going to be made is on burning people out and pissing people off.

yes truth is harsh - workflows doesnt work and has been merged way too early

really strange talking about workflow on

Backend template

issue

as a former moderator ... cannot believe at this....i'm guilty

This is ridiculous - but whatever discussion you start in Joomla it ends up with " due to workflow ..",
I am moderator (not here) but here we are.
So this is a ridiculous discussion - who brought the "Finite State Machine"? We can continue with it.

i really appreciate how different POV It is perceived

today i've collected bullshit, troll, ridiculous for simply publish in the wild my own opinion

again thanks open community ... ?

And this all ... including those people stating that they never make mistakes and then run away when they find out they did... is killing this cms.

i always make mistake, and unfortunately i will make a lot of more in the future
i just hope that i will able to do a different one....

your friendly troll/riduculus/bullshit ?

Closing and locking this. As long as everyone keeps talking past one another and not taking time to actually understand issues (or using "but this is what we were told it is going to be" as an excuse for the current broken state of 4.0), nothing productive is going to come out of this discussion.