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(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Maarten Dammers
<maarten(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools