On 09/27/2013 01:52 PM, James Forrester wrote:
What about for core changes needed by extensions that
(I'm thinking specifically of VisualEditor here, but no doubt there are
others), where our dependencies on MW 1.22 alpha (currently
are almost all back-portable.
This is a good example.
Here is another: I noticed that a lot of questions showing up on the
Support Desk had to do with Wikipedia templates, so I spent a small
amount of time getting Scribunto to work with 1.19. (I'm sure there are
lots of bugs in there, but it did work in my testing.)
So, yes, for cases like this it would make sense to backport these sorts
of features even to to non-LTS versions. I did cover this briefly when
I wrote that if "the requestor thinks it should be backported to non-LTS
releases, they should say so in a comment."
If you have suggestions for how to improve the policy, I'm all ears.
For example, someone else thought this was too bureaucratic and less
agile than it could be. I think, though, that the point of having a
meeting every couple of weeks to handle backport reviews is to provide a
definite time-line for when changes will be reviewed (as per Siebrand's
The review can happen before then, but the meetings are meant to serve
as a definite point in time for the review in order to ensure that the
reviews *do* happen.
Mark A. Hershberger