Hi all, and thanks for the info.I get from your messages that there are two major points to be solved:1. A clear lack of communication (mass messages are often unread or quickly read, because there is some abuse of the tool, and what is important gets lost in the flood of messages). Probably it's not the role of developers to communicate, but someone has to do it.2. A clear lack of management. There is a global lack of trust in Mediawiki developers for the reason above, but also because certain changes introduced more issues than they solved. I agree with Sam: there is a need for product managers, who can also communicate about important changes, but also check the development and be sure that new changes can be safely deployed. I mean: it's the basics of software development!I don't think it's a matter of time if we focus on one feature at a time, test it, test it again, do beta test, and then merge it. We're not a software house: we do have time. I understand that volunteers might not be happy in being constrained by a strict workflow, but I also understand that work has to be done well or not done at all.Btw, I understand that there is beta.wikisource somewhere. Maybe an invitation to the different projects to test the new features there before the merge, would be a good occasion to involve more people in quality control. (sorry if this has been done, and I've missed it)Cheers,A.Ruthven on Wikipedia_______________________________________________On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 04:45, Sam Wilson <sam@samwilson.id.au> wrote:_______________________________________________I think most Wikisource developers are likely to be on this list. Of course, it's best to make sure there are Phabricator tickets for every separate bug or feature request.
On 21/11/21 1:36 am, Ankry wrote:
Well, I was notified by techncally skilled users that the ned OpenSeadragon library is much heavier and more memory consuming than curreently used tools. So I can only hope that its load into memory can be disabled if one needs so.
(may be critical while working on multiple pages at once)
However, I doubt if any technical comments from communities expressed here will reach developers. And which wiki pages would be more appropriate for such comments.
Ankry
W dniu 20.11.2021 o 14:33, Ruthven pisze:
Hi all,as usual, I get surprised every time there are major changes on the MediaWiki software that are deployed without providing advance warning to the community.Every time it's the same story: something stops working on the project. A gadget, a toolbar or some personalised JS.
This time it was T288141 (see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T288141), that was deployed in all the Wikisources (then rolled back because WikiMedia computer scientists are the best) completelydisruptingredesigning the image side of the Page namespace. This affected the toolbars (see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T296033) and several gadgets around all the Wikisources.
I am not saying that MediaWiki software shouldn't be improved: it's normal that we're trying to get all we can from this outdated software. I am just asking that major changes that affect all the Wikisources should be announced in every single Village Pump waaay before deploying them on the projects.
Is it possible, as a Usergroup, to do a little pressure to be considered as a community and not as guinea pigs on which to deploy new, partially-tested features?
AlexRuthven on Wikipedia
_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list -- wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikisource-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list -- wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikisource-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikisource-l mailing list -- wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wikisource-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikisource-l mailing list -- wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wikisource-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org