On 22 May 2014 18:11, Gergo Tisza gtisza@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Krinkle krinklemail@gmail.com wrote:
> Q: When will the upgrade happen?
A: In the next few weeks, once we are happy that the impact is reasonably low. An update will be sent to wikitech-l just before this is done as a
final
reminder.
This will be well before the MediaWiki 1.24 branch point for
extension authors looking to maintain compatibility.
I'm not sure this decision makes sense. This would mean that 1.23 shipped with jQuery 1.8 and 1.24 will ship with jQuery 1.11, without the backwards compatibility plugin. I don't see how this helps extension authors, and it will be a nuisance for wiki webmasters who will have to deal with the breakage of all the not-so-well maintained extensions, without any transition period where they could identify and fix/replace them, when they do the 1.23 -> 1.24 upgrade. There should be a major version which includes the migration plugin.
Possibly, though I would suggest that it is not loaded by default. Frankly if an extension's authors have abandoned their extension to the extent that after several years' clear warning and a six month-long notice period they still didn't do a relatively trivial set of fixes, then it's reasonable to make it necessary for sysadmins to make a (small) effort acknowledging that this code is toxic and should only be used if you're willing to wade into "here be dragons" territory.
Indeed, I created this patch for this purpose, which retains jQuery.Migrate (with the intent to remove it for MediaWiki 1.25):
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/133719/%E2%80%8B
(This is a separate matter from whn the migration plugin should be removed from WMF-maintained sites. It adds to the JS overhead, even if just a little, and it might make sense to put jQuery Migrate behind a config switch which is enabled by default but disabled on Wikimedia sites after June 1. But the next tarball should contain the migration plugin and enable it by default.)
I disagree, for the reasons stated above; the inverse makes more sense.
J.