Hey,
I'd like to clarify two points about my previous email:
1. it is purely my own personal opinion. It is loose from any of the
MediaWiki related projects I am "involved" with.
2. The questions I asked are not meant as criticism on the concept of
having a core platform team, treating MediaWiki as a product, or improving
the design and quality of the MediaWiki codebase. I think all of these are
good ideas and hope WMF is very successful in pursuing them. This is why
I'm asking hard questions about problems that I perceive to seriously
undermine the chances of meeting the stated goals.
Cheers
--
Jeroen De Dauw |
https://entropywins.wtf |
https://keybase.io/jeroendedauw
Software craftsmanship advocate
~=[,,_,,]:3
On 3 April 2017 at 09:34, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hey,
Like any significant codebase with a long
development history, there are
remnants of design choices and experiments that are
no longer in use, and
some areas of code are in need of modernization. However, at its core is a
large amount of highly functional, secure, performant code, capable of
supporting a robust platform through the use of extensions and hooks. There
is also a great amount of flexibility to adapt to new requirements.
This makes it sound like the MediaWiki codebase is pretty well designed.
That is in stark contrast to my view, which is that it is a typical big
ball of mud with serious pervasive issues too numerous to list. So I'm
curious how you arrived at your view.
...
The stated goals and lineup strike me as very WMF, and something I've seen
often enough before. What makes you think the results will not be poor
leadership and disastrous technical results (in my estimation costing WMF
many millions of USD) like in the past? What will be different this time?
Cheers
--
Jeroen De Dauw |
https://entropywins.wtf |
https://keybase.io/jeroendedauw
Software craftsmanship advocate
~=[,,_,,]:3