9 Январь 2013 г. 4:09:21 пользователь James Forrester (jforrester@wikimedia.org) написал:
On 4 January 2013 09:02, Mark A. Hershberger mah@everybody.org wrote:
Would it be possible to adapt the Visual Editor to run under 1.19?
Possible? Yes. However, it would involve back-porting a number of changes that have been made to core since then (and will no-doubt continue to be added as we discover new ways in which MW assumes that "editing" and "EditPage.php" are the same thing). For some quick examples, and https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/36237/ and https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/37191/ (which are both in 1.21 wmf5) - though I'm sure there are more out there. I worry that you'd end up needing to create 1.19.4-ve_support branches that would be no easier than pushing to a 1.21 bleeding-edge branch, sadly.
My own (already past) experience of developing MediaWiki extensions shows that it is much easier to keep the compatibility layer in extension itself rather than backporting large changes into older versions of core. For example, one of the gerrit patches mentioned above can be "probed" via method_exists( $this->mTitle, 'getEditNotices' ), then acting according to result - pretty fast and efficient. So, the extensions should be LTS first, not core. The very core of MediaWiki (at least when deployed at small sities) is still revision / article / title, which is possible to use in very similar ways.
However there are major milestone versions, such as 1.17 with ResourceLoader and 1.21 with ContentHandler, and it's not easy to backport their functionality back (although I managed to load dynamically some jQuery scripts in 1.15 with Lab.js loader). So, the extensions probably has to be compatible to such "major milestone versions".
But many of the sites the wikistats list have are quite large and thus earn enough of money to their owners. I wonder why do not they update their sites. One guess I know that some admins consider newer versions are slower than old ones, do not know how much that is true.
Dmitriy