On Jan 16, 2015 9:21 AM, "Mark A. Hershberger" <mah(a)nichework.com> wrote:
Ori Livneh <ori(a)wikimedia.org> writes:
> The model I do think we should consider is Python 3. Python 3 did not
> jettison the Python 2 codebase. The intent behind the major version
change
> was to open up a parallel development track in
which it was permissible
to
break
backward-compatibility in the name of making a substantial
contribution to the coherence, elegance and utility of the language.
I like the idea, but this makes it sound like we have some commitment
in the current co-debase to backwards compatibility.
Currently, though, just as Robla points out that there is no clear
vision for the future, there is no clear mandate to support interfaces,
or what we usually call "backwards compatibility".
So, yes, let's have a parallel MW 2.0 development track that will allow
developers to try out new things. But let that be accompanied with a MW
1.0 track so that makes stability a priority.
Now, the question is: what will Wikipedia run: MW 2.0 or MW 1.0? And,
if they focus on MW 2.0 (My sense is that is where the WMF devs will
want to be), then how do those of us with more conservative clients keep
MW 1.0 viable?
Mark.
--
Mark A. Hershberger
NicheWork LLC
717-271-1084
This seems a solution in search of a problem. Does anyone actually have
anything they want that is difficult to do currently and requires a mass
compat break? Proposing to rewrite mediawiki because we can without even a
notion of what we would want to do differently seems silly.
--bawolff