Hey,
As the first components of the deployment stuff I'm working on are getting finished, I find myself unsure where to put them in core. I think the best approach would be to rename includes/installer to includes/deployment, which can then hold all deployment related code, and maybe has some subdirectories for stuff like the new web installer.
Any reasons not to do this?
Cheers
-- Jeroen De Dauw * http://blog.bn2vs.com * http://wiki.bn2vs.com Don't panic. Don't be evil. 50 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 6D 69 6E 67 20 34 20 6C 69 66 65! --
On 16/08/10 00:42, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
Hey,
As the first components of the deployment stuff I'm working on are getting finished, I find myself unsure where to put them in core. I think the best approach would be to rename includes/installer to includes/deployment, which can then hold all deployment related code, and maybe has some subdirectories for stuff like the new web installer.
Why do you want it to be in the core? I thought it was designed as an extension.
-- Tim Starling
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:26 AM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 16/08/10 00:42, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
Hey,
As the first components of the deployment stuff I'm working on are getting finished, I find myself unsure where to put them in core. I think the best approach would be to rename includes/installer to includes/deployment, which can then hold all deployment related code, and maybe has some subdirectories for stuff like the new web installer.
Why do you want it to be in the core? I thought it was designed as an extension.
-- Tim Starling
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Just my two cents,
Would a new installer not be unusable as an extension, considering the installer a) would need to be included in LocalSettings.php, and b) creates LocalSettings.php itself.
Simon (stwalkerster)
Hey,
Why do you want it to be in the core? I thought it was designed as an
extension.
No, the idea is to have all deployment code in core in the end. It doesn't make much sense to have to manually go install an extension in order to do it automatically. The reason for the code currently being in the Deployment extension is that this allowed me to do more experimental things with it, and finish it up nicely before having it in core. If you look at the class names you can see I never intended this as extension by the lack of prefixes.
Would a new installer not be unusable as an extension.
The new installer is already in core. This thread is about the non-core-installer deployment code, such as detecting extension updates, browsing through extensions that can be installed, getting them and installing them.
Cheers Jeroen De Dauw
On 16/08/10 18:41, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
Hey,
Why do you want it to be in the core? I thought it was designed as an
extension.
No, the idea is to have all deployment code in core in the end. It doesn't make much sense to have to manually go install an extension in order to do it automatically. The reason for the code currently being in the Deployment extension is that this allowed me to do more experimental things with it, and finish it up nicely before having it in core. If you look at the class names you can see I never intended this as extension by the lack of prefixes.
I think you should leave it as an extension for now, until it is completed and reviewed. We can worry about core directory structures if and when it's accepted.
If it is merged in, we'll probably be aiming for release in 1.18, which means it will have to stay either in an extension or a branch until the 1.18 branch point.
-- Tim Starling
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 16/08/10 18:41, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
Hey,
Why do you want it to be in the core? I thought it was designed as an
extension.
No, the idea is to have all deployment code in core in the end. It doesn't make much sense to have to manually go install an extension in order to do it automatically. The reason for the code currently being in the Deployment extension is that this allowed me to do more experimental things with it, and finish it up nicely before having it in core. If you look at the class names you can see I never intended this as extension by the lack of prefixes.
I think you should leave it as an extension for now, until it is completed and reviewed. We can worry about core directory structures if and when it's accepted.
If it is merged in, we'll probably be aiming for release in 1.18, which means it will have to stay either in an extension or a branch until the 1.18 branch point.
-- Tim Starling
+1. I've tried to make it very clear that 1.17 needs to be feature complete sooner rather than later; I'm definitely enforcing this in the installer.
I think this is great stuff, but best targeted for post-branching like Tim said.
-Chad
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org