On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
As you say, I think the current process is Ok(ish) for now. We need to
[…]
But right now, I don't sense a huge amount of friction between the WMF's needs and the non-WMF MediaWiki-using community. The most that can be said is that the WMF is focused on its sites and doesn't make third party use a priority. This doesn't stop support for other databases, though: Oracle, MS SQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, or even my recent changes to separate out DB schema changes in MySQL.
Right, that’s about it. With my FusionForge/Evolvis hat on, I’m happy with how we agreed on the 1.19 series for Debian, that I started to learn to work with the MW bugtracker, and that patches go either way. I am a bit unhappy that instead of a database, MySQL is used/preferred, but (after the last few bugfixes), PostgreSQL works, so I’m set. We carry a few local patches (getting fewer and fewer) and a few backports on top of a stable release, which is fine.
I expect us (as in, my employer) to not follow every single MW release quickly, and Debian probably won’t either (most‐ ly for lack of manpower, I guess).
Extensions are a bit of an issue (especially since Debian’s packaging of them relies on them being in a Subversion repo but that’s our problem), but, as most of them are contribu‐ ted, that cannot be faulted either.
In short, you don’t hear any complaints from me – about the release process, that is… cursing at DB incompatibility is, of course, bound to come from here ;-) but communication is better now, and MW devs helped us willingly, so thanks.
With my Debian Developer hat on, I don’t sense much in that area of complaints either.
bye, //mirabilos