In https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/enter_bug.cgi I don't see any appropriate category for gadgets like Twinkle or Image Annotator. Let me know if I'm missing something.
Roan, Timo and others have been working towards making gadgets manageable through a shared repository ( see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ResourceLoader/Version_2_Design_Specification ). As part of moving towards better systems for publishing, internationalizing and sharing gadgets, I suggest we also standardize how we track gadget bugs.
Analog to the "MediaWiki extensions" product, I suggest that we create a "MediaWiki gadgets" category, initially with only an "[Other]" component.
We could make it part of the gadget publication process to a shared repository on MediaWiki.org that gadgets receive a Bugzilla component, and that the initial author is added as a default-CC to it.
Thoughts?
Erik
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Analog to the "MediaWiki extensions" product, I suggest that we create a "MediaWiki gadgets" category, initially with only an "[Other]" component.
We could make it part of the gadget publication process to a shared repository on MediaWiki.org that gadgets receive a Bugzilla component, and that the initial author is added as a default-CC to it.
Thoughts?
I don't believe there is a precedent for tracking bugs to on-wiki JavaScript on Bugzilla, but I'm open to the idea. The gadget maintainers would have to agree with you that BZ is preferable over [[MediaWiki talk:Gadget-foo.js]] though.
Roan
Will they get looked at as often as "Wictionary Tools?"
-Chad On Nov 9, 2011 5:50 PM, "Roan Kattouw" roan.kattouw@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Analog to the "MediaWiki extensions" product, I suggest that we create a "MediaWiki gadgets" category, initially with only an "[Other]" component.
We could make it part of the gadget publication process to a shared repository on MediaWiki.org that gadgets receive a Bugzilla component, and that the initial author is added as a default-CC to it.
Thoughts?
I don't believe there is a precedent for tracking bugs to on-wiki JavaScript on Bugzilla, but I'm open to the idea. The gadget maintainers would have to agree with you that BZ is preferable over [[MediaWiki talk:Gadget-foo.js]] though.
Roan
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
How is that different then how extensions have [[Extension talk:name]] and a BZ entry as well?
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.kattouw@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Analog to the "MediaWiki extensions" product, I suggest that we create a "MediaWiki gadgets" category, initially with only an "[Other]" component.
We could make it part of the gadget publication process to a shared repository on MediaWiki.org that gadgets receive a Bugzilla component, and that the initial author is added as a default-CC to it.
Thoughts?
I don't believe there is a precedent for tracking bugs to on-wiki JavaScript on Bugzilla, but I'm open to the idea. The gadget maintainers would have to agree with you that BZ is preferable over [[MediaWiki talk:Gadget-foo.js]] though.
Roan
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.kattouw@gmail.com wrote:
I don't believe there is a precedent for tracking bugs to on-wiki JavaScript on Bugzilla, but I'm open to the idea. The gadget maintainers would have to agree with you that BZ is preferable over [[MediaWiki talk:Gadget-foo.js]] though.
Seems relevant: https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/issues
I bet Twinkle isn't the only gadget (or bot, for that matter) which already has an issue tracker.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Seems relevant: https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/issues
I bet Twinkle isn't the only gadget (or bot, for that matter) which already has an issue tracker.
For sure. And the fact that this is already happening shows how complex and important some of these gadgets have become -- much more so, in fact, than even quite a few MediaWiki extensions and core features.
Bugzilla has all the obvious benefits a systematic tracker brings over a talk page, and I agree the two can usefully be complementary. If we create a product for gadgets, and gently encourage people to use BZ components for widely used ones, we can get into the habit of using BZ as appropriate.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
In https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/enter_bug.cgi I don't see any appropriate category for gadgets like Twinkle or Image Annotator. Let me know if I'm missing something.
Traditionally on-wiki developments is tracked, on-wiki. So anything related to templates created by any particular wiki, project workflows, as well as gadgets all have their own talk page, which is the default place for discussion and bug reports.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Olivier Beaton olivier.beaton@gmail.com wrote:
How is that different then how extensions have [[Extension talk:name]] and a BZ entry as well?
It's different in that Gadgets and other on-wiki developments are done by wiki users on wiki pages. Extensions may put their documentation on-wiki but the extension itself is put in SVN through commit access, whereas Gadgets are put on actual wiki pages (e.g. [[MediaWiki:Gadget-Foo.js]]). So what Talk pages are to Wiki pages, BugZilla/CodeReview is to SVN. That's not to say it should stay that way forever.
Would we only track gadget-issues in BugZilla for gadgets hosted on MediaWiki.org ?
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Analog to the "MediaWiki extensions" product, I suggest that we create a "MediaWiki gadgets" category, initially with only an "[Other]" component.
We could make it part of the gadget publication process to a shared repository on MediaWiki.org that gadgets receive a BugZilla component, and that the initial author is added as a default-CC to it.
Having code review for on-wiki javascript and an issue tracking is an obvious need, but I don't think it's currently lacking. There is revision patrol on-wiki and LiquidThreads for talk pages. Neither meant for reviewing code or tracking issues, but seems to work for now (at least from my perspective I don't see anyone having problems finding a place to report bugs or authors having trouble coping with bug management).
Although there is a bit of a problem with de-centralized bug reports for gadgets, the primary cause for this is because gadgets were copied form wiki to wiki leading to bug reports bug put on talk pages across wikis, some on which the original author will never look. By migrating to a gadget repository there will be only one talk page for a gadget, hence that issue will pretty much solve itself over time.
Also as a nice bonus, by putting stuff on wiki talk pages it's very easy to put things on/off watchlists, track on Special:NewMessages, etc. everything that comes with a MediaWiki (talk) page.
BugZilla as we have it right now imho isn't usable for most wiki users (for one because they need to create a separate account and expose their e-mail adress, and BugZilla is (in terms of front-end) somewhat a usability nightmare for users that aren't programmers or gadget authors, but actual wiki users reporting problems or requesting features. I think they would prefer just going to the gadget's talk page and creating a section.
-- Krinkle
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org