-
Task
-
Resolution: Done
-
Major
Since the workflow plugin has been introduced, the industry seems to have settled on the keyword "pipeline" to refer to a series of inter-connected automation used for software delivery that the workflow plugin is solving.
While we have spent a considerable amount of effort evangelizing and popularizing "Workflow" to the Jenkins community, we found ourselves constantly needing to explain what it is, and this is particularly evident when we are talking to people who are not closely involved with the Jenkins project, such as silent-majority users, journalists, and new users.
Rather than continuing this fight, at this point it seems more sensible to start using the word "pipeline". This has an added benefit to signal the intention of core developers that the pipeline support is front & center for Jenkins.
For backward compatibility, there are parts we can rename & parts we cannot. jglick should update this with more detailed plan on exactly what to rename and what not to, but my current understanding is:
Getting renamed:
- All the display names in the user interface
- GitHub repository name
- Plugin display name (what shows up in the update center)
NOT getting renamed:
- Class name, package name, and Maven GAV ID
- Plugin short name will stay the same
- is related to
-
-
- Closed
-
- links to
[JENKINS-31153] Rename workflow to pipeline
| Epic Link |
New:
|
Agree if only for the fact that I've been referring to the rewrite of my employer's Jenkins jobs chains (using workflow-plugin) as "pipeline" since the beginning of the project.
Vanity aside, pipeline seems like a stronger brand to me. It connotes that interconnectedness mentioned above and seems more kinetic than "workflow." Ie, a product is actually moving through something to its ultimate destination.
Continuous Delivery Pipeline or Deployment Pipeline are the names most commonly used in the industry, but I'm afraid renaming the plugin would generate confusion with Build Pipeline and Delivery Pipeline plugins.
What's the deal with this ticket? Is somebody going to actually rename things, if so when? I'm going to have a lot more documentation and blog content around Workflow (er, Pipeline!) in the next few weeks and I really don't want to go around search-and-replacing it or confusing people
Well I have to set aside some time for it. Replacing usages inside the workflow-plugin repo is easy enough. Renaming the repo is harder and I do not think it is a good idea. Then there are other references from various places which need to be collected and evaluated. Some have no obvious solution, such as the Stack Overflow tag; I am not sure if these even can be renamed.
Middle of this thread suggests that SO tag renaming is possible, sort of:
http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/87437/how-to-rename-a-tag
IMO, we're past the point where renaming is viable. Renaming to "pipeline" or whatever is just going to cause confusion. I'm a strong -1 on this.
-1. Workflow is not about pipeline in general, it's only a particular use-case. It also causes lots of confusions after 3 years of Workflow marketing in OSS
Still unsure about renaming the GitHub repository. This could be disruptive. Anyway I want to move toward putting plugins in their own repos wherever possible, and these will be workflow-something-plugin to follow the convention of naming the repository after the short name / artifact ID, and it would be confusing to have pipeline-plugin as one repository and workflow-something-plugin closely related to that.