Iv Ray wrote:
Because half-fixes are easier than a full one?
Yes, it seems to be a matter of attitude.
If you provided a full fix (without breaking
anything), it would be
No one can provide a "full fix", especially without breaking anything,
without a community agreement and support of the idea.
Having that feature is not a target. But it's a common requested
featured, and would get accepted. However, don't expect others will
actively work to make that.
Wikipedia is about serving people and if some of these
MediaWiki because of that, and need a couple of features in order to
make it usable in their environment, the spirit of serving should, at
least, allow that, if not supporting it, which would be, in my opinion,
the right approach.
Wikipedia is about making an encyclopedia.
The goal of MediaWiki is not making people happy or use it, but to run
it on Wikipedia.
The fact that it is free, open source and publicly available are just
convenient for third parties.
the spirit of serving should, at
least, allow that, if not supporting it,
Yes, in spite of what I remarked above, there's ample room for asking
improvements and adding fixes for features not needed for Wikipedia.
As I told you, if you manage to "fix" it, you'll almost surely allowed
to have incorpored into the software the changes needed. But, easy
things, are more likely to get done, and people isn't currently caring
so much about it to have it implemented.
If you care enough, sure, go for it.
No need to rant about the status quo, unless you're really going to