Marcus Buck schreven:
An'n 02.09.2010 22:50, hett Aryeh Gregor
schreven:
This is exactly what Bugzilla does. In practice,
of course, the
overwhelming majority of feature requests there are not fixed, but
again, this is not a problem with the process and it cannot be fixed
or even mitigated by changing the process.
It certainly can be improved. As I
said, my main concern is not
bugfixing, but development. Like the implementation of a common image
repository, parser functions, single user login to name some from the
past. The HTML5 upload is smaller, but it's a new feature and not a bugfix.
Bugzilla is also for enhacements, not only for bugfixes
Having the proposal in bugzilla gives a point where it is recorded and
hopefully taken up at some time. As opposed to an email which gets
buried int he archive. Although if there's no reaction to the bug, a
note here eg. after a week may help to raise attention.
You may also come to #mediawiki in irc to talk with us about specific
features (How likely is that we can get a foobar bazinastic implemented
soon?).
Nikola Smolenski has done great work on Interwiki
transclusion. But
nothing has happened since two years. If I were a member of the tech
department at Wikimedia, I'd be enthused and would put all my energy in
reviewing his code, straigthening out any remaining problems and making
it real as soon as possible. I mean, making interwiki bots obsolete,
making obsolete like hundreds of thousands edits per day, that would be
an amazing improvement, wouldn't it? This dormancy worries me.
Have you seen
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Peter17/Reasonably_efficient_interwiki_t…
recent GSOC project?
It's still not merged to trunk, but it's there.
And do note that you can help reviewing the code, even if you can't give
it the final ok. Any problem you spot now, is an error less to be found
later.
You can follow MediaWiki (core & extensions) development at
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki