Hi,
Is there any written policy about the review-process for Gadgets?
For Extensions I found a document, that says an Extension should: get a design review, be internationalized, get a code review and finally get a deployment review. [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Writing_an_extension_for_deployment]
I can't find any rules like this for Gadgets, but I see lot's of Gadgets set default in several Wikis. I think Gadgets can be designed badly and have security flaws as well as Extensions… so there shouldn't there exists some review process?
best regards, Lukas
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:31:13 +0200, Lukas Benedix benedix@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
I can't find any rules like this for Gadgets, but I see lot's of Gadgets set default in several Wikis. I think Gadgets can be designed badly and have security flaws as well as Extensions… so there shouldn't there exists some review process?
There should. But it's impossible in practice, as the gadgets are written by volunteers for other volunteers, who often have very limited free time, and who often couldn't care less whether the code is nice or not if it works.
Quite simply, there is not enough contributors to review gadgets, and there is not enough of them to respond to reviews, if any were to happen. If you have any concrete improvements in mind, probably the best way to get them done is to either edit the gadget (if you have permission), or suggest changes to the code (preferably by pasting in the new version) on the wiki's equivalent to [[en:WP:Administrators' noticeboard]].
Am Mo 15.04.2013 13:38, schrieb Bartosz Dziewoński:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:31:13 +0200, Lukas Benedix benedix@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
I can't find any rules like this for Gadgets, but I see lot's of Gadgets set default in several Wikis. I think Gadgets can be designed badly and have security flaws as well as Extensions… so there shouldn't there exists some review process?
There should. But it's impossible in practice, as the gadgets are written by volunteers for other volunteers, who often have very limited free time, and who often couldn't care less whether the code is nice or not if it works.
I fully agree on that. There are to many Gadgets to review all of them, but I think there should be a design- and codereview at least before a Gadget is set to default.
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:48:31 +0200, Lukas Benedix benedix@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
I fully agree on that. There are to many Gadgets to review all of them, but I think there should be a design- and codereview at least before a Gadget is set to default.
I think this is at the discretion of the admins of whatever wiki we're talking about.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Lukas Benedix benedix@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
I can't find any rules like this for Gadgets, but I see lot's of Gadgets set default in several Wikis. I think Gadgets can be designed badly and have security flaws as well as Extensions… so there shouldn't there exists some review process?
The bottom line is that the review process is up to each wiki, and depends on the volunteer admins on each wiki.
The situation may improve somewhat when we finally get around to creating the "central code repository" that has been on the back burner for some time now, but it will still be the case that local wikis can install local gadgets if they want.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Brad Jorsch bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Lukas Benedix benedix@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
I can't find any rules like this for Gadgets, but I see lot's of Gadgets set default in several Wikis. I think Gadgets can be designed badly and have security flaws as well as Extensions… so there shouldn't there exists some review process?
The bottom line is that the review process is up to each wiki, and depends on the volunteer admins on each wiki.
It is up to them, although I would encourage those admins to at least ask for a security review before enabling a gadget by default.
On 04/15/2013 07:13 AM, Brad Jorsch wrote:
The situation may improve somewhat when we finally get around to creating the "central code repository" that has been on the back burner for some time now
Is there a wiki page / Bugzilla enhancement request about this project somewhere? Sounds like a good idea, worth to be promoted to
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mentorship_programs/Possible_projects#Raw_proj...
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org