The other mail seems to have gone on a huge tangent about the benefits of Flow / what it can do. This is great but I feel like my original question has gone unanswered so I am resurrecting it with a new e-mail subject. I worry lots of good feedback got lost in that big email chain.
So hypothetically... If we switched over from the unmaintained LiquidThreads (LQT) to the maintained Flow what would happen? [By this I mean on every page regardless of namespace that LQT is we enable Flow instead.]
Some top level questions to get started: 1) Do we need to import all conversations over OR can we just switch to a blank page to get started from? 2) What can you do in LQT that you cannot do in Flow? (Please do not include issues with design - this is a new product that can be redefined as it is developed on) 3) Any other concerns?
Jon
On Jun 10, 2014 1:10 PM, "Jon Robson" jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
The other mail seems to have gone on a huge tangent about the benefits of Flow / what it can do. This is great but I feel like my original question has gone unanswered so I am resurrecting it with a new e-mail subject. I worry lots of good feedback got lost in that big email chain.
So hypothetically... If we switched over from the unmaintained LiquidThreads (LQT) to the maintained Flow what would happen? [By this I mean on every page regardless of namespace that LQT is we enable Flow instead.]
Some top level questions to get started:
- Do we need to import all conversations over OR can we just switch
to a blank page to get started from? 2) What can you do in LQT that you cannot do in Flow? (Please do not include issues with design - this is a new product that can be redefined as it is developed on) 3) Any other concerns?
Jon
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Ok, putting my love of free form talk pages aside for the present conversation...
You are talking about mw.org? I think non mediawiki.org wikis requires a longer discussion. Id suggest just doing mw.org for the time being.
Id like to propose caution when transitioning project:support desk. Its an important page where the change might be disruptive.
Id propose: convert non support desk lqt pages. Wait a while for complaints, if nothing then convert support desk.
Id also like a way to turn a flow page back to wikitext for talk pages etc in case somebody doesnt like it (i havent been following closely enough to know if that is already possible)
--bawolff
On 10 June 2014 09:19, Brian Wolff bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 10, 2014 1:10 PM, "Jon Robson" jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
The other mail seems to have gone on a huge tangent about the benefits of Flow / what it can do. This is great but I feel like my original question has gone unanswered so I am resurrecting it with a new e-mail subject. I worry lots of good feedback got lost in that big email chain.
So hypothetically... If we switched over from the unmaintained LiquidThreads (LQT) to the maintained Flow what would happen? [By this I mean on every page regardless of namespace that LQT is we enable Flow instead.]
Some top level questions to get started:
- Do we need to import all conversations over OR can we just switch
to a blank page to get started from? 2) What can you do in LQT that you cannot do in Flow? (Please do not include issues with design - this is a new product that can be redefined as it is developed on) 3) Any other concerns?
You are talking about mw.org? I think non mediawiki.org wikis requires a
longer discussion. Id suggest just doing mw.org for the time being.
I disagree. Instead, I would suggest having just the smidgen of patience and actually waiting when the Flow team have responded on the thread and told you it'd take some time, rather than posting the same request in a second thread because you didn't get the answer you wanted.
J.
Jon, here's what I posted last week. It's possible that you missed it because I didn't post it as a reply to you...
The Flow team is going to work in a few weeks on automatically archiving talk pages, so that we can enable Flow on pages where there are already existing conversations. Basically, this means moving the old discussions on an archive page, and leaving a link for "See archived talk page" visible on the new Flow board.
That means there'll be a minute where a currently active discussion would get interrupted, and have to be restarted on the new Flow board. That will be a pain, but it would only be a one-time inconvenience during that transition moment.
The team's goal for LiquidThreads transition is essentially the same -- turning the existing conversations into a form that we can archive, and preserve for the future. If we tried to turn ongoing LQT discussions into ongoing Flow discussions, we'd actually be spending more development time on archiving the deprecated feature than we would spend on archiving wiki talk pages.
There's a few more big features for Flow that we're working on this summer; we'll have some new things to show off pretty soon.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:21 AM, James Forrester jforrester@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10 June 2014 09:19, Brian Wolff bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 10, 2014 1:10 PM, "Jon Robson" jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
The other mail seems to have gone on a huge tangent about the benefits of Flow / what it can do. This is great but I feel like my original question has gone unanswered so I am resurrecting it with a new e-mail subject. I worry lots of good feedback got lost in that big email chain.
So hypothetically... If we switched over from the unmaintained LiquidThreads (LQT) to the maintained Flow what would happen? [By this I mean on every page regardless of namespace that LQT is we enable Flow instead.]
Some top level questions to get started:
- Do we need to import all conversations over OR can we just switch
to a blank page to get started from? 2) What can you do in LQT that you cannot do in Flow? (Please do not include issues with design - this is a new product that can be redefined as it is developed on) 3) Any other concerns?
You are talking about mw.org? I think non mediawiki.org wikis requires a
longer discussion. Id suggest just doing mw.org for the time being.
I disagree. Instead, I would suggest having just the smidgen of patience and actually waiting when the Flow team have responded on the thread and told you it'd take some time, rather than posting the same request in a second thread because you didn't get the answer you wanted.
J.
James D. Forrester Product Manager, VisualEditor Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
jforrester@wikimedia.org | @jdforrester _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Jun 11, 2014 2:19 AM, "Brian Wolff"
... Id also like a way to turn a flow page back to wikitext for talk pages etc in case somebody doesnt like it (i havent been following closely enough to know if that is already possible)
Another option would be for existing LQT pages to 'be asked' if they want to change back to wikitext mode while Flow is being deployed. E.g. Some users may want to opt out now and add their user_talk on a list to be migrated from LQT to wikitext and not be Flowified. This will reduce the impact of they deploy, and may reduce the 'noise', allowing more focus on issues relating to pages that want/need Flow.
Many LQT pages have never really used the functionality provided, have only had a few posts each year with little interaction, and wont benefit from being auto archived in order to have Flow enabled.
Bot operators could do page conversion. Im guessing that would involve reproducing the LQT content as wikitext into the archive using the liquidthreads API, and then switching the page back to wikitext mode. Is page delete, page recreate the only way to switch it back to wikitext mode?
-- John
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org