in regards to codebase changes, as liam mentioned, a list of specific items to address would be very helpful. i’m still not 100% familiar with the mediawiki framework and the wiki way of developing, so any help that guides me or any developer through it is very much appreciated. gergo’s comments have broader reach and probably relate more to my own lack of knowledge regarding to standard software engineering best practices. his comments are clear enough that i could move forward, but i would want to be able to confirm with him my approach to making the changes in order to verify that those changes meet the requirements he’s mentioning. overall, i think we could make changes to the grant to reflect both brian’s and gergo’s comments, but i think we may want to wait until we’ve decided in which direction to move forward.
code review was always a very difficult hurdle to overcome. personally, i’m concerned about this thought that i left code review to the end; that is just simply not the case. initially i tried several times to “properly” place code in gerrit and to understand the process, but the comments i got were scarce and not helping me out. the gerrit workflow did finally gain progress, but only once we were able to pull a few foundation devs away from their regular projects. since that time i have always developed gwtoolset within the gerrit workflow. i think that gergo’s point about relying on foundation code review and erik’s suggestion regarding a second mw dev are the most important. i believe we do have such a dev considering working on this project, but i’m not sure of the details.
in regards to why other developers have not picked up the torch to help out, i personally don’t think it has to do with the gwtoolset codebase itself. i believe that if someone really wants to help out they will. i know that both david and i tried several times to find other developers, but during the entire project, except for one python programmer that expressed interest, and even before then, neither david and i, nor the steering committee were able to find anyone else who was interested in programming for the project and that continues to be a problem, yet i don’t think that means we should give up on it.
o dan
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl wrote:
No, it doesn't need to exist with MediaWiki. We wanted to create a tool that ran on a production grade platform with production grade support.
What level of downtime per month / per year do you consider acceptable for this type of tool?
Thanks,
Erik
-- Erik Möller VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation
Glamtools mailing list Glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools