On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Tony Thomas 01tonythomas@gmail.com wrote:
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).
We will try to be much more aggressive about patch review too, yes. :)
-- brion
Thanks, Tony Thomas https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:01tonythomas
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@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@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@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:35 AM Jeroen De Dauw <
jeroendedauw@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
MediaWiki-l mailing list To unsubscribe, go to: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l