On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Aryeh Gregor
<Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If I'm interpreting this right, you're saying
that upgrades can break
stuff, so people should stick to versions with known security flaws.
This is a defensible position in practice, but it doesn't justify
making upgrades unnecessarily hard. It would be a good thing if
typical admins could easily upgrade, without needing FTP access and so
forth. If they choose not to, that's their choice, but if they want
to upgrade, they should be able to do so easily.
No I'm saying not to use a
automated update version within a extension
which for example has been shown to break things in other web based
packages (Wordpress has apparently fixed it since the horrible times
when i last attempted). What about the maintenance scripts people have
to run? such as the updater, alot of people on shared hosting can't do
those as it is without re-running the installer since they aren't
allowed ssh access and ours aren't designed to be run from within the
browser window.
Any kind of auto-update mechanism should be hardcoded
to retrieve only
from a specific Wikimedia URL and only over HTTPS, and the contents of
that URL should only be changeable by sysadmins. Or at least the
checksum should be retrieved that way.
So every-time someone that creates/modifies
a extension wants to
update its version number? which is why it was recommended to go wiki
base, but that as well has it flaws.