Make it clearer that the CKEditor module provides support for CKEditor 4

Tempted to bump this to Critical and tag this a Drupal 10 blocker …

Renamed CKEditor to CKEditor4.
kindly review.

Thanks, @chaitanyadessai!

Arguably we should rename all occurrences of CKEditor (without a subsequent 5) to CKEditor 4. But:

1. That would not be very helpful: wherever that appears, it's clearly within the context of CKEditor 4
2. This would trigger an avalanche of string changes

I do think that this is the minimal viable change. But let's see what the test results say 🤓

Aha, looks like we need to tweak these two tests slightly:

1. Drupal\Tests\system\Functional\Module\InstallUninstallTest::testInstallUninstall
2. Drupal\Tests\quickedit\FunctionalJavascript\QuickEditLoadingTest::testUserPermissions

Re-testing #3, given there have been many changes in the last 17 days — I suspect that it'll pass just fine now 🤓

+1 to this. I think it would improve the UX because it would make it explicit that the CKEditor module is for CKEditor 4.

When I've been typing up stuff about ckeditor, I also have to use ckeditor 4 and ckeditor 5, because ckeditor and ckeditor 5 is confusing, so I think I'm +1 to this.

A lot of existing documentation will be slightly off, but it's not like we're changing it to 'WYSIWYG module' or something, and that documentation is all going to be outdated by ckeditor 5 existing anyway.

A lot of existing documentation will be slightly off

Indeed. But not worse than any of the existing documentation still referring to "Drupal 8" when it would've been "Drupal 9" for a good while now. So I agree that it's not ideal, but still better than the status quo 👍

Old patch no longer applies, rerolled.

P.S.: first patch from a brand new machine! 🤓

Pro: This would make documentation easier to understand as it refers to "CKEditor 4" in many places and more clearly distinguish the two modules as one could assume numberless is referencing the same module but not bothering to mention the version.

Con: This could alarm some users, especially GUI-only ones, who wonder what happened to "CKeditor" (and now there's a 4 AND 5? I'm anxious now!!). It also makes things a little less consistient, as there would now be two interchangeable names in the codebase for CKEditor 4: CKEditor 4 and Ckeditor. There's no option that isn't going to be a little confusion, but I wonder if adding "4" in some places creates the subconscious expectation for more "4"s overall.

So I'm still on the fence, but you're welcome to just push me off the fence and get on with things if nothing I've shared prompts any concern.

i've noticed one detail when testing https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/issues/3294914 a last time today. after upgrading to drupal 10 and running the update.php you get the following:

it is sort of confusing to see ckeditor being removed requiring a contrib module in particular for people not following the change notes that closely. therefor a plus one from me as well.

*mentioned it on the drupal slack in the corresponding thread and @wim-leers asked if i could post it in here as well .

Applying patch #10 successfully.Adding screenshot for the reference.

Personally, I don't think is a good idea, #11 sums it up for me, and i land on the don't do this side of the fence. As it is now, CKEditor 5, looks like an addition of a single new thing. That is easy to understand and there is no confusion.

Changing it to CKEditor 4 also means that Wiki documentation has to change. That can be avoided by not doing this.

Perhaps, we should mention in the release notes that the name of the older module has not changed.

Release notes mention is a good idea. I also lean towards not doing this.

I updated the a CR and the deprecated and obsolete docs page. I have also added a note to the 9.5.0-rc2 release notes.

I think that covers everything and there is nothing more to do here.

The changes in the CR and the deprecated-and-so-on documentation page look fine to me.

If there's agreement that these changes are enough, then I think we can close this issue?

Hiding patches and adding tags for a rewrite of IS and title so the (apparently) new don't rename approach is written down for prosperity.

Updated the issue summary and title, let's mark this fixed.