TL;DR: Please add feedback to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Suggestions_for_extensions_to_be_integrated
Since MediaWiki 1.20 has been released, a discussion (opened by hexmode) is ongoing on how to make our release notes better so that users understand what improvements there are and why they should update: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/65080 (please join if you didn't yet).
Another problem, however, is making the tarball, which is what most sites use, actually useful. After the first in 1.18, no more extensions have been bundled: Wikimedia projects use no less than 140 extension (most of them functioning) but the tarball ships only 7. A problem that many MediaWiki users have is that they don't understand how vital many extension are, at least for any wiki open to the web.
I'd like 1.21 to include some more, so I ask you to join the brainstorming on our good old https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Suggestions_for_extensions_to_be_integrated There are already a few suggestions on it; my personal pet peeve is that MediaWiki is perhaps the software with the best localisation existing but very few use it well because we don't ship LocalisationUpdate.
Topic for another discussion would be to solve some problems with the installer/upgrader like "set up cron for TorBlock" (?) or "check the compatibility of extensions"...
Nemo
On 26/11/12 13:17, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
TL;DR: Please add feedback to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Suggestions_for_extensions_to_be_integrated
That's an old page. Probably better to open a new one / archive its contents and start nominating extensions from scratch.
I've partly refactored the page in the past and most (or all) suggestions there are still relevant and up to date.
Nemo
On 26/11/12 16:47, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
I've partly refactored the page in the past and most (or all) suggestions there are still relevant and up to date.
Nemo
I saw a few changes, but seems odd to argue with 2009 comments (or even 2008). New proposals mixed with old stuff.
Platonides wrote:
I saw a few changes, but seems odd to argue with 2009 comments (or even 2008). New proposals mixed with old stuff.
Sorry, I don't follow. If a comment is obviously no longer relevant, please strike it. Most of the old comments are still relevant. Thanks, Nemo
On 11/26/2012 04:17 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Wikimedia projects use no less than 140 extension (most of them functioning) but the tarball ships only 7. A problem that many MediaWiki users have is that they don't understand how vital many extension are, at least for any wiki open to the web.
Is there a page like "Essential extensions any MW admin should consider" :) or similar? Listing extensions with a short description.
That wouldn't be the solution of the tarball problem you are describing but it would be really useful for the majority of MW admins having to search for extensions *after* they miss something.
On 11/26/2012 12:14 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
That wouldn't be the solution of the tarball problem you are describing but it would be really useful for the majority of MW admins having to search for extensions *after* they miss something.
Actually, any extensions that are widely used like that *should* be considered for inclusion in the tarball.
Mark
I agree with Mark. Extensions that have broad use and are useful in multiple common situations would useful to include into the next tarball release. Most of the default extensions included with the previous MediaWiki tarballs are very nice to have out of the box, and I like the idea of having all the extensions commonly used by most MW admins available in the next tarball release.
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:18:34 -0500 From: mah@everybody.org To: mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [MediaWiki-l] Extensions to include in the 1.21 tarball/installer
On 11/26/2012 12:14 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
That wouldn't be the solution of the tarball problem you are describing but it would be really useful for the majority of MW admins having to search for extensions *after* they miss something.
Actually, any extensions that are widely used like that *should* be considered for inclusion in the tarball.
Mark
Language will always shift from day to day. It is the wind blowing through our mouths. -- http://hexm.de/np
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Another place to look for lists of the type Quim wants:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Possible_tarballs
This is in addition to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Suggestions_for_extensions_to_be_integrated .
On 26 November 2012 17:18, Mark A. Hershberger mah@everybody.org wrote:
On 11/26/2012 12:14 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
That wouldn't be the solution of the tarball problem you are describing but it would be really useful for the majority of MW admins having to search for extensions *after* they miss something.
Actually, any extensions that are widely used like that *should* be considered for inclusion in the tarball.
Something analogous to popcon for extensions?
- d.
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org