-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Nick Jenkins wrote:
Brion, would you refuse to allow a patch for per-page ACLs on political (rather than technical) reasons? I.e. if the code was clean, it was off by default, it had little or no overhead if you weren't using it, most of it was in an extension, with only limited changes to the core where required, the license was acceptable, it was used at a number of sites, it fulfilled a user need / desire, there didn't seem to be any security problems, the patch's developers were communicate and responsive, it used the same coding style as other code, was well-commented and documented, etc etc
- Would you revert such a patch: Yes or No?
Such a patch is not very likely to exist, as it's an inherently sticky problem because it *has* to pervade the system in order to work.
If an attempt to do it appeared out of nowhere, I would have to assume it doesn't work properly and would indeed revert it; why waste everyone's time plonking in a big ugly system that probably won't even work properly?
As an example see the code related to use of rev_deleted; it has little tendrils everywhere and still isn't ready to go live after being in for some time.
While there may be a possibility that we'll end up with that on a page basis, it's not going to be pretty.
So no, I would not accept such a "patch". Ongoing work to move in that direction, _maybe_ _possibly_. But some big honkin "patch" would be inherently useless crap.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)