From my position of next to the mozzie bite on the
backside of a common breed of antelope
in a backwater of a forest obscured in the
middle of the night, ie. a total nonentity in
the scheme of things.
AMEN! MZMcBride. Best birthday wishes for bug 7952, enjoy kindergarten.
Sometimes the focus on grafting new trunks, and the experimental breeding of new varieties
of trunks has allowed people to forget to water the trees that exist, especially as that
is where the current fruit is located. (horrid analogy, but heck wax rhetorical)
At this point of time my expectations of fixes are close to zero, and for improvements
even less. Even where a developer has a fix ready to go, and the bug is causing issues
with work it seems that short of being impolite or hammering down someone's door or
being
a massive whiney butt that nothing progresses. Example?
Anyway, I will crawl back to <s>Wikisource</s> my backwater and feed the
mosquitoes.
Regards, Andrew
On 2 Nov 2010 at 19:39, MZMcBride wrote:
Rob Lanphier wrote:
After review, some (but not all) of the features
in the review queue
then need to be reviewed for checking into the deployment branch. Our
short term answer to that was the deployment queue:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Deployment_queue
I have a few comments.
You're chomping at the edges again, but not focusing on the larger issue.
It's still about _WHO_ is going to be deploying these extensions (or doing
general code updates). That question is still unresolved and it's at the
heart of the problem. By focusing on the periphery, you're simply needlessly
adding paperwork (like the new "Deployment queue") without actually
accomplishing anything. Read on for a specific example of why deployment is
sometimes the sole issue, not review.
The issue with focusing on a "Review queue" is that it puts the focus and
emphasis in the wrong place. Nobody cares about getting their code reviewed
(per se). They want their code live on the site. Most developers don't care
if their code is efficient or not (Domas can speak more to this), they just
want to see their hard work in production. That's why they contribute code
(or contributed, as the case seems to be nowadays). So the emphasis should
be on deployment, a key step of which is code review, to be sure. But
putting the focus on review (as though once review is finished, something
will magically change) is silly and a poor idea.
Regarding extension deployment in general, one of the issues that seems to
be overlooked is why it's necessary to require individual sites to request
that a feature be enabled. As long as there aren't performance concerns, an
extension should be enabled by default. Let's look at a specific example.
Here's the current configuration for DynamicPageList:
'wmgUseDPL' => array(
// controls loading of DynamicPageList extension
'default' => false,
'dewiktionary' => true,
'enwiktionary' => true,
'incubatorwiki' => true,
'metawiki' => true,
'otrs_wikiwiki' => true,
'srwiki' => true,
'strategywiki' => true,
'wikibooks' => true,
'wikimania2009wiki' => true,
'wikimania2010wiki' => true,
'wikimania2011wiki' => true,
'wikinews' => true,
'wikiquote' => true,
'wikiversity' => true,
),
Inexplicably, "'wikisource' => true" and "'wikitionary'
=> true" are
missing. It also sets the default to false, even though the vast majority of
sites could have this extension without any issue. The consequence of this
is that the following bugs are currently open asking for this extension to
be enabled on a Wikimedia wiki:
nlwiki |
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6163
iswiktionary |
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7952
eswiktionary |
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7952
bswiki |
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8240
dewikisource |
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8563
enwikisource |
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8563
hewikisource |
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8563
viwiktionary |
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8886
plwiktionary |
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11788
nlwikibooks |
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15477
frwiki |
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19810
frwikisource |
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22250
itwikisource |
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25172
This is (literally) a two-line change that would resolve a large amount of
old bugs. Of course this doesn't consider that plenty of sites are simply
suffering in silence, having not yet understood how to file a shell bug or,
more likely, having watched the progress of the other bugs, I would imagine
a good number of communities have simply decided to not waste the time
filing a bug that's simply going to be ignored.
I don't see how this acceptable or desirable, especially given that this is
an example of an extension that has been reviewed, but is purely in the
"deployment" arena now.
Before someone starts shouting about not considering the performance of
large sites, I'll note that according to my numbers, the largest Wiktionary
by number of pages (enwiktionary) has this extension enabled.[1] Perhaps
there are more complex reasons that this extension can't be enabled
elsewhere; I'd certainly be interested in hearing them. I imagine the people
waiting years for this extension to be enabled would be interested as well.
Call me pessimistic, call me cynical, call me whatever, but take a look at
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7952 and tell how this is
acceptable. This bug will celebrate its fourth birthday this month on
November 16. Somehow I don't think the Icelandic Wiktionary with its 19,000
pages is going to crash the servers.
Perhaps the addition of a Bugmeister will allow this type of problem to get
more attention, though I think it's kind of ridiculous that it's going to
require an additional full-time staff member to point out what anyone taking
a minute to research can point out right now.
MZMcBride
[1]
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Wiki_server_assignments
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l