So this isn't too big of an issue, but I've realized that we have three extensions that do exactly the same thing:
Extension:Gist http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Gist Extension:Gists http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Gists Extension:GitHub http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:GitHub
And by exactly the same thing, I mean the code is nearly identical. All three have the exact same effect of adding in a <script> tag when the <gist> tag is used in a page.
For the sake of making things easier on people who might actually want to use one of these three extensions, could we maybe pick one?
*--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo@gmail.com
On 02/07/2013 12:42 AM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
So this isn't too big of an issue, but I've realized that we have three extensions that do exactly the same thing:
Extension:Gist http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Gist Extension:Gists http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Gists Extension:GitHub http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:GitHub
And by exactly the same thing, I mean the code is nearly identical. All three have the exact same effect of adding in a <script> tag when the <gist> tag is used in a page.
For the sake of making things easier on people who might actually want to use one of these three extensions, could we maybe pick one?
Who's we? WMF isn't using any for obvious reasons (arbitrary code injection).
If someone is interested (please make sure it's on a wiki with closed registration), I would recommend https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Gists since it's hosted on GitHub (pull requests beat edit conflicts any day).
Matt Flaschen
On 02/07/2013 12:52 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 02/07/2013 12:42 AM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
So this isn't too big of an issue, but I've realized that we have three extensions that do exactly the same thing:
Extension:Gist http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Gist Extension:Gists http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Gists Extension:GitHub http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:GitHub
And by exactly the same thing, I mean the code is nearly identical. All three have the exact same effect of adding in a <script> tag when the <gist> tag is used in a page.
For the sake of making things easier on people who might actually want to use one of these three extensions, could we maybe pick one?
Who's we? WMF isn't using any for obvious reasons (arbitrary code injection).
"We" is the Wikimedia technical community, I'd wager. :-)
If someone is interested (please make sure it's on a wiki with closed registration), I would recommend https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Gists since it's hosted on GitHub (pull requests beat edit conflicts any day).
Matt Flaschen
On 02/07/2013 01:02 AM, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
Who's we? WMF isn't using any for obvious reasons (arbitrary code injection).
"We" is the Wikimedia technical community, I'd wager. :-)
My point was three different people made those extensions, and while we can encourage them to work together, we can't force them.
Matt Flaschen
Yes, but we don't have to keep all three extension pages. As the MediaWiki community, don't we want to make things simpler for sysadmins? We can't force them to work together, but I don't see how keeping all three extensions on MW.org is useful.
*--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 02/07/2013 01:02 AM, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
Who's we? WMF isn't using any for obvious reasons (arbitrary code injection).
"We" is the Wikimedia technical community, I'd wager. :-)
My point was three different people made those extensions, and while we can encourage them to work together, we can't force them.
Matt Flaschen
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 02/07/2013 01:17 AM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
Yes, but we don't have to keep all three extension pages. As the MediaWiki community, don't we want to make things simpler for sysadmins? We can't force them to work together, but I don't see how keeping all three extensions on MW.org is useful.
I don't know if there's precedent for evicting extensions from MW.org. There are already warnings about two for storing code on the wiki.
Arguably, it's useful to have a complete directory, so people can search and have stuff categorized, even though some are redundant and/or low quality.
Matt
It's one thing to have redundant extensions, it's another to have three different extensions (two of which have names differing by one letter) that are exactly the same thing, as in line-for-line they do the same exact thing.
*--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 02/07/2013 01:17 AM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
Yes, but we don't have to keep all three extension pages. As the
MediaWiki
community, don't we want to make things simpler for sysadmins? We can't force them to work together, but I don't see how keeping all three extensions on MW.org is useful.
I don't know if there's precedent for evicting extensions from MW.org. There are already warnings about two for storing code on the wiki.
Arguably, it's useful to have a complete directory, so people can search and have stuff categorized, even though some are redundant and/or low quality.
Matt
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I think that this is a solution in search of a problem.
-Chad On Feb 7, 2013 1:18 AM, "Tyler Romeo" tylerromeo@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but we don't have to keep all three extension pages. As the MediaWiki community, don't we want to make things simpler for sysadmins? We can't force them to work together, but I don't see how keeping all three extensions on MW.org is useful.
*--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Matthew Flaschen <mflaschen@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On 02/07/2013 01:02 AM, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
Who's we? WMF isn't using any for obvious reasons (arbitrary code injection).
"We" is the Wikimedia technical community, I'd wager. :-)
My point was three different people made those extensions, and while we can encourage them to work together, we can't force them.
Matt Flaschen
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Until we forbid pasting code on-wiki, I don't see how there's anything we can do.
-Chad On Feb 7, 2013 1:28 AM, "Q" overlordq@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/7/2013 12:24 AM, Chad wrote:
I think that this is a solution in search of a problem.
How about saying, extensions on mw.org shouldn't expose security vulnerabilities to wiki's running them. That would probably be a better metric.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 22:27:46 -0800, Q overlordq@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/7/2013 12:24 AM, Chad wrote:
I think that this is a solution in search of a problem.
How about saying, extensions on mw.org shouldn't expose security vulnerabilities to wiki's running them. That would probably be a better metric.
That's what {{XSS alert}}, {{SQL injection alert}}, and {{Code injection alert}} are for.
We have a few dozen extensions that fall under these topics.
Although we've exiled the extensions that permit PHP execution.
Tyler Romeo wrote:
So this isn't too big of an issue, but I've realized that we have three extensions that do exactly the same thing:
Extension:Gist http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Gist Extension:Gists http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Gists Extension:GitHub http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:GitHub
And by exactly the same thing, I mean the code is nearly identical. All three have the exact same effect of adding in a <script> tag when the <gist> tag is used in a page.
For the sake of making things easier on people who might actually want to use one of these three extensions, could we maybe pick one?
Sure, I picked "Gists". It didn't seem like a very difficult choice. All cleaned up (redirected) now.
MZMcBride
On 02/07/2013 03:14 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
Sure, I picked "Gists". It didn't seem like a very difficult choice. All cleaned up (redirected) now.
I don't think that makes sense. If someone has a link to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Gist from a README or something, they're now going to a different extension.
You can propose deleting the others, but I think the redirects are somewhat misleading.
Matt Flaschen
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 02/07/2013 03:14 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
Sure, I picked "Gists". It didn't seem like a very difficult choice. All cleaned up (redirected) now.
I don't think that makes sense. If someone has a link to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Gist from a README or something, they're now going to a different extension.
You can propose deleting the others, but I think the redirects are somewhat misleading.
The confusion caused by having three almost identical extensions (particularly "Gist" v. "Gists") far exceeds the confusion caused by the redirects (or broken links, if we deleted the documentation, as you suggest). Even if we deleted the other extensions, both "Extension:Gist" and "Extension:GitHub" are completely reasonable and warranted redirects to "Extension:Gists", putting us exactly back to where we started.
I've re-reverted your edits and added a note to the page explaining that the other extensions were redirected/merged.
MZMcBride
I should also point out that the likelihood of any links pointing to either of the other two extensions is very low, considering neither have README files (both had their code on the page) and only the GitHub extension even had the extension page URL in the extension description.
*--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:25 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 02/07/2013 03:14 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
Sure, I picked "Gists". It didn't seem like a very difficult choice. All cleaned up (redirected) now.
I don't think that makes sense. If someone has a link to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Gist from a README or something, they're now going to a different extension.
You can propose deleting the others, but I think the redirects are somewhat misleading.
The confusion caused by having three almost identical extensions (particularly "Gist" v. "Gists") far exceeds the confusion caused by the redirects (or broken links, if we deleted the documentation, as you suggest). Even if we deleted the other extensions, both "Extension:Gist" and "Extension:GitHub" are completely reasonable and warranted redirects to "Extension:Gists", putting us exactly back to where we started.
I've re-reverted your edits and added a note to the page explaining that the other extensions were redirected/merged.
MZMcBride
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org