LQT and MediaWiki

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Fwd: New Commons beta app for...

Hello, and the short term plans

Mark A. Hershberger

23 Feb 2013 23 Feb '13

10:58 p.m.

The topic of "What is going on with Liquid Threads?" has popped up again[0]. I've said that I think it should be considered to be in maintenance mode. My reasoning: * It isn't under active development, but * It gets quite a workout on the MW.o Support Desk (and other places on WMF sites) I'm fairly confident that, as a result of it being used in such a public way, we'll be able to find someone to fix problems or at least have the motivation to fix any problems that come up ourselves. That is, I think it is safe to say LQT will remain usable in its current state on any coming MW versions for the foreseeable future. Of course, if someone wanted to start driving new development on it, that would be great. Right now, though, all I'm looking for is a confirmation that it will remain usable. I imagine one of the first things that we would need to do is include it in some testing plans. [0] http://hexm.de/p9 -- http://hexmode.com/ There is no path to peace. Peace is the path. -- Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"

Show replies by date

Krenair

23 Feb 23 Feb

11:07 p.m.

I'm trying to fix some of it's problems, but I need reviewers (who can and are willing to +2): https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/status:open+project:mediawiki/extensions… I'll definitely try to keep up with any breaking core changes (like https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/49609/). It should remain usable. Alex Monk On 23/02/13 22:58, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:

...

maiki

24 Feb 24 Feb

5:02 a.m.

On 02/23/2013 03:07 PM, Krenair wrote:

...

That's groovy, since I am about to install LiquidThreads for the first time. ^_^ Is there anything folks who deploy it can help with? maiki

Krenair

2:29 p.m.

Report any bugs you find. I can't think of much else at the moment. Alex Monk On 24/02/13 05:02, maiki wrote:

...

On 02/23/2013 03:07 PM, Krenair wrote:

That's groovy, since I am about to install LiquidThreads for the first time. ^_^ Is there anything folks who deploy it can help with? maiki _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Siebrand Mazeland (WMF)

2:41 p.m.

Thanks for all your work on LQT so far, Alex. It's highly appreciated! I just reviewed 10 of 12 open patch sets. I merged 8, don't agree with a solution of one and have no opinion on another. One remaining was marked -1 already, the other ill probably get to one day soon. LQT has more than 200 open issues in bugzilla. 100+ are marked bug. For us at translatewiki.net, the most important one we would like to see fixed is bug 30698[1]. It's about watchers of a target page of a moved thread not being able to receive an email notification. A missing link in our support workflow, where we collect threads in a central location, then move them to pages for a specific supported product, where developers of that product can deal with open threads. Any one who would fix this, will of course get our eternal gratitude. [1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/30698 Cheers! -- Siebrand Mazeland M: +31 6 50 69 1239 Skype: siebrand Op 24 feb. 2013 om 15:29 heeft Krenair <krenair(a)gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:

...

Report any bugs you find. I can't think of much else at the moment. Alex Monk On 24/02/13 05:02, maiki wrote:

On 02/23/2013 03:07 PM, Krenair wrote:

_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Quim Gil

9:05 p.m.

On 02/24/2013 06:41 AM, Siebrand Mazeland (WMF) wrote:

...

LQT has more than 200 open issues in bugzilla. 100+ are marked bug.

There are bug management slots available at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/QA/Weekly_goals Are there people interested in getting involved in a LQT Bug Day, in a QA week? -- Quim Gil Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil

James Forrester

25 Feb 25 Feb

2:06 a.m.

On 24 February 2013 13:05, Quim Gil <qgil(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

On 02/24/2013 06:41 AM, Siebrand Mazeland (WMF) wrote:

LQT has more than 200 open issues in bugzilla. 100+ are marked bug.

There are bug management slots available at https://www.mediawiki.org/**wiki/QA/Weekly_goals<https://www.mediawiki.o… Are there people interested in getting involved in a LQT Bug Day, in a QA week?

That could be really valuable; w/c 18 March would be great if that's not otherwise used. J. -- James D. Forrester Product Manager, VisualEditor Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. jforrester(a)wikimedia.org | @jdforrester

Andre Klapper

8:34 p.m.

On Sun, 2013-02-24 at 18:06 -0800, James Forrester wrote:

...

On 24 February 2013 13:05, Quim Gil <qgil(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

On 02/24/2013 06:41 AM, Siebrand Mazeland (WMF) wrote:

LQT has more than 200 open issues in bugzilla. 100+ are marked bug.

https://www.mediawiki.org/**wiki/QA/Weekly_goals<https://www.mediawiki.o… Are there people interested in getting involved in a LQT Bug Day, in a QA week?

That could be really valuable; w/c 18 March would be great if that's not otherwise used.

Let's do it: See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/Triage/20130318 andre -- Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/

Federico Leva (Nemo)

24 Feb 24 Feb

7:43 a.m.

Mark, your assumptions about LQT are blatantly wrong or in other words it's just wishful thinking. Tests are done as usual by translatewiki.net on the last code, then some volunteers take care of the worst problems: usually it's TWN staff, but few days ago Krenair has submitted fixes for a dozen major/critical bugs (*audience oooooh's*). Several are rather small and self-contained, reviews and merges by anyone are highly appreciated. Nemo

Mark A. Hershberger

8:48 p.m.

On 02/24/2013 02:43 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

...

Mark, your assumptions about LQT are blatantly wrong or in other words it's just wishful thinking.

Ok, I can accept that. But your next statement seems to contradict this. Here is what I thought I said: given where LQT is used (some WMF sites and, as you point out, TWN), we can assume it will be safe to use LQT against the HEAD of git for the foreseeable future. People shouldn't expect great new features, but they can that it will remain as usable as it is *in its current state* for the foreseeable future. You said:

...

Tests are done as usual by translatewiki.net on the last code, then some volunteers take care of the worst problems: usually it's TWN staff, but few days ago Krenair has submitted fixes for a dozen major/critical bugs

I'm not sure how this doesn't match up with my assumptions. Maybe I gave the impression that I thought LQT was rock solid and bugs were being fixed quickly? If so, that wasn't my intent. I like LQT better than the talk page format, but I have used it enough to realize that it isn't free of warts. And I realize, too, that it doesn't have a full-time paid developer devoted to it. Instead, I was trying to figure out how much attention people are paying to it, given the places it is being used. I'm glad to see Krenair and others fixing bugs. Mark. -- http://hexmode.com/ There is no path to peace. Peace is the path. -- Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"

Platonides

2:44 p.m.

On 23/02/13 23:58, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:

...

That is, I think it is safe to say LQT will remain usable in its current state on any coming MW versions for the foreseeable future. Right now, though, all I'm looking for is a confirmation that it will remain usable. I imagine one of the first things that we would need to do is include it in some testing plans.

It is used by some of WMF wikis, so it has to remain usable not to broke them.

David Gerard

2:51 p.m.

On 24 February 2013 14:44, Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 23/02/13 23:58, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:

...

> That is, I think it is safe to say LQT will remain usable in its current > state on any coming MW versions for the foreseeable future. > Right now, though, all I'm looking for is a confirmation that it will > remain usable. I imagine one of the first things that we would need to > do is include it in some testing plans.

...

It is used by some of WMF wikis, so it has to remain usable not to broke them.

Although I don't expect it - is anyone maintaining it against 1.19 LTS? If it isn't being maintained against 1.19, then is there an exit strategy? Is there a way to remove LQT while preserving the content usably? - d.

Krinkle

3:22 p.m.

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 3:51 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 24 February 2013 14:44, Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 23/02/13 23:58, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:

It is used by some of WMF wikis, so it has to remain usable not to broke them.

I'm not sure what kind of exit strategy you'd need. If you're using MediaWiki 1.19, you install the REL1_19 version the extension, right? Just because MediaWiki marked version 1.19 "LTS", doesn't mean every extension author has to support 1.19 on the latest version of their extension. Extensions and their authors have always been independent. Extensions that are actively maintained by people who stay up to date with announcements (should include authors involved with the Wikimedia Foundation) may decide to support 1.19 and/or maintain a REL branch, but that's at their own discretion. There's lots of extensions that implement new features that are only for 1.20 or 1.21 and will likely break horribly on 1.19 or earlier. As crazy as that may sound, and I don't necessarily agree with this practice, It's how it's always been. We've been doing mass updates to all extensions for breaking changes in core from time to time, we have to in order to support the latest stable version. If you're using MediaWiki 1.19, you install the REL1_19 version the extension. Unless the extension documentation explicitly says it supports an old version, installing a newer version of an extension on an older version of MediaWiki is at your own risk. This is the reason we branch extensions after every release and provide them as options in the extension distributor. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:ExtensionDistributor/LiquidThreads -- Krinkle