(Adding a couple of mailing lists so others can weigh in. Changing subject so those added aren't completely lost.)
On 02/21/2013 11:55 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
Ok, just a question as humble 3rd party MediaWiki user and technical volunteer coordinator at the WMF: is there a possibility to consider having a regular free software release process?
master/unstable ---> (testing releases?) ---> stable releases
...
I think the current process is ok-ish in the short term: non-WMF contributors are getting +2 and 3rd parties are getting tarballs.
As you say, I think the current process is Ok(ish) for now. We need to get others in the MediaWiki "ecosystem" involved in core before this becomes something we really need to do.
It would be great to have developers from other significant MediaWiki sites (like Referata, Wikia, Citizendium, etc) become more involved and start introducing features or hooks that they use into core or making the extensions available. Of course, some of those developers have already been involved.
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.
That said, I'm very interested in this conversation. As MZ will remind you, I did advocate for the formation of the MediaWiki Foundation.
Mark.
On 2013-02-21 1:40 PM, "Mark A. Hershberger" mah@everybody.org wrote:
(Adding a couple of mailing lists so others can weigh in. Changing subject so those added aren't completely lost.)
On 02/21/2013 11:55 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
Ok, just a question as humble 3rd party MediaWiki user and technical volunteer coordinator at the WMF: is there a possibility to consider having a regular free software release process?
master/unstable ---> (testing releases?) ---> stable releases
...
I think the current process is ok-ish in the short term: non-WMF contributors are getting +2 and 3rd parties are getting tarballs.
As you say, I think the current process is Ok(ish) for now. We need to get others in the MediaWiki "ecosystem" involved in core before this becomes something we really need to do.
It would be great to have developers from other significant MediaWiki sites (like Referata, Wikia, Citizendium, etc) become more involved and start introducing features or hooks that they use into core or making the extensions available. Of course, some of those developers have already been involved.
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.
That said, I'm very interested in this conversation. As MZ will remind you, I did advocate for the formation of the MediaWiki Foundation.
Mark.
There is no path to peace. Peace is the path. -- Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Having wikipedia use unstable versions helps to catch many bugs. Not only are wikimedians great testers (they (ab)use the software in insane ways), by in large bugs encountered by wikimedians get reported effectively.
Thus the use of unstablish releases on wikimedia allows for much more stable core releases.
-bawolff
On 02/21/2013 12:50 PM, Brian Wolff wrote:
Thus the use of unstablish releases on wikimedia allows for much more stable core releases.
Thanks for pointing this out. I meant to say this, too.
I guess the question I want other MediaWiki users to answer is: Are there any concerns that mitigate this benefit?
Mark.
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
On 02/22/2013 03:42 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
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.
Please do not hesitate to file any bugs for things that don't work for you in PG. And if they aren't getting resolved quickly enough, please ping me.
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).
And this is the exact reason that I initiated LTS support for 1.19. We'll make releases every 6 months, but you can be assured that we'll support 1.19 for a while.
With my Debian Developer hat on, I don’t sense much in that area of complaints either.
I installed the package last night on http://home.nichework.com/ -- dns may not be propagated yet -- and was disappointed that you didn't use the CLI installer to set up a wiki using debconf.
There were a couple of other nits, but I think that overall it is a great thing.
Thanks,
Mark
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:13:46AM -0500, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
On 02/22/2013 03:42 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
With my Debian Developer hat on, I don’t sense much in that area of complaints either.
I installed the package last night on http://home.nichework.com/ -- dns may not be propagated yet -- and was disappointed that you didn't use the CLI installer to set up a wiki using debconf.
There was not time between Thorsten and I to get this into good enough shape for Wheezy before the freeze. I would like to have debconf configuration set up for Jessie though, when the time comes for that.
There were a couple of other nits, but I think that overall it is a great thing.
Bug reports are welcome of course, though for now only critical issues will see fixes in Wheezy.
On 02/24/2013 01:56 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:13:46AM -0500, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
There were a couple of other nits, but I think that overall it is a great thing.
Bug reports are welcome of course, though for now only critical issues will see fixes in Wheezy.
Of course. I don't think any of them were critical, so I just need to make sure I test it more next time around.
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
Please do not hesitate to file any bugs for things that don't work for you in PG. And if they aren't getting resolved quickly enough, please ping me.
Okay, will do. I reported some already (40889), or others did (39635), and one’s still pending inclusion (29635).
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:13:46AM -0500, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
I installed the package last night on http://home.nichework.com/ -- dns may not be propagated yet -- and was disappointed that you didn't use the CLI installer to set up a wiki using debconf.
There was not time between Thorsten and I to get this into good enough shape for Wheezy before the freeze. I would like to have debconf configuration set up for Jessie though, when the time comes for that.
In my special case, Wikis are automatically set up through the forge, so this isn’t something I’d use (or even want to use – in fact, an (one) automatically created Wiki may be annoying to people who have previously configured MW themselves or use Wiki farms, be it via FusionForge or otherwise), so an option (in debconf) to disable that would be welcome.
That being said, I’m generally in favour of such a thing, i.e. a package offering to configure enough so it runs with sane defaults after installation. I think it’ll increase user experience/happiness.
bye, //mirabilos
mediawiki-distributors@lists.wikimedia.org