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(a)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) completely disrupting redesigning
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?
Alex
*Ruthven* on Wikipedia
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list -- wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wikisource-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list -- wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wikisource-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list -- wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wikisource-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org