Simetrical wrote:
On the flip side of that, you can't just stick
something like check
usage up on the main servers without review by the people who are
collectively available 24/7 to maintain those servers and the software
running on them. Toolserver stuff is not centrally reviewed for
security or performance issues, and the core devs/sysadmins are
probably not familiar with how it works. It also tends to be somewhat
tacked-on, and would be better if integrated properly into MediaWiki.
So I think the distinction between "carefully-maintained,
high-availability software" and "toolserver stuff" will remain to some
extent, and the goal needs to be to move the most valuable stuff to
extensions or even core and run it on the main servers. But those are
just my thoughts.
Aye, but the "carefully maintaned" stable toolserver
tools should be
efficient, too (if the task can be efficiently done, of course, the
criteria for inclusion would be greater).
In fact, i'm for rewriting some of these tools in the moving.
Why? Current tools are one man's work. They work, but can be a bit
{{esoteric}}, with hacks added on backend changes and only the author
fully knows it.
By rewriting them between all the maintaners, they all know the baby
since birth. It's easier knowing a check-usage when you have seen the
functions grow from one sql query, than starting with a teenager.
Also, the peer reviewing of every check-in should push for more
efficient and modular code. Plus, the new tools would have a clear
license (toolserver scripts are required to have a free license, but
it's not clear for all under which they're, rewriting fixes it). That
said, doesn't mean you can't view or even copy code from previous tool.
In the end, it's up to the team.
Opinions?