Great to know. I am looking forward at a team to whom volunteer devs can
ask to review their patchsets to mediawiki-core and its extensions without
an indefinite ETA! (probably I read the team goals wrong).
Thanks,
Tony Thomas <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:01tonythomas>
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
We'll be primarily working on things for Wikimedia
-- that's what people
donate to WMF to support -- but part of what we want to do is to provide a
clearer development roadmap which we expect to be helpful to third-party
users, and clearer points of contact for getting things done.
At this time there are no plans I'm aware of for providing explicit
third-party support contracting from within WMF (as in, paying people to
provide custom installation support, custom development, prioritization of
custom bug fixes, or explicitly lobbying to get particular custom
development or ideas merged into core that aren't focused on Wikimedia
needs). I think this would be great to do, but it's just not on the table
for now.
I would strongly encourage any interested and enterprising people who might
wish to perform such work to organize themselves to provide such custom
services directly to people who need them and work with us on that roadmap
& future core development.
-- brion
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Jasmine Smith <jassmith55(a)outlook.com>
wrote:
Out of interest, will this 'platform
team' only work to serve Wikimedia
or
the wider MediaWiki user community?
One of my vices with the WMF/mediawiki is that development is to benefit
the WMF.
The WMF uses a number of extensions which are highly sought after by
those
wanting to set up their own wikis (SecurePoll,
CentralAuth, Site Matrix,
etc) but provides no support for them, says they are only for WMF but
released anyway, and unless you know PHP, those extensions are locked
off.
I don't feel like the WMFs goal to openly share knowledge applies in
these
cases, and development of MediaWiki isn't to
support the wider community
of
users.
On 3 Apr 2017, at 02:16 pm, "Chad"
<innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:35 AM Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
> As opposed to Wikibase, which is a collection of well-designed
components
which
nobody (outside of its development team) knows how they are held
together to form a cohesive product. My guess has always been magic
and/or
prayers.
Something something glass houses & stones.
-Chad
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
To unsubscribe, go to:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
To unsubscribe, go to:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
To unsubscribe, go to:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l