On Wednesday 21 December 2005 23:46, Brion Vibber wrote: Dear Brion, I talked with Tim on this mailing list, where he said that stable versions and their templates need to be cached, and that he worked on some kind of patch. I said OK, since you're working on that, I'll rest my extension. A few days went by. As not much seemed to happen in this regard, I asked if someone was working on it. I received no reply. So I went ahed and did was had been discussed on my own, since noone seems to do it. And all I get as a reaction for, yet again, doing what everyone else just keeps talking about is yor above comment. This seems to be a pattern. Last year, I realized that we'd need a review/validation feature, soon. So I went ahed and started implementing one. I checked it into CVS and kept updating and improving it. Release erly, release often, the open source mantra. I assumed that, this being open source, and having 60+ developers listed at sourceforge for MediaWiki, I would get some help in finishing it. I didn't, not really. I wrote it up to working status basically on my own, working in comments from test site users. I checked in the first version seventeen month ago. SEVENTEEN MONTH! And all the "help" I got was some vague uneasyness from you about it. At one point you said something I could work with, namely that you were concerned about it loading too much data from the database (or something along that line), which I promptly fixed. Then, I think it was two weeks ago, you said that, after seventeen month of hot air, that the validation feature was unsalvagable. So I went ahead and rewrote it as a feature, which was one of your wishes some month ago. I have not heard anything about that from you either. Don't take this as a personal attack. Maybe you're just overworked (you've done a lot of work to be sure). Maybe you're suffering from a mild case of Linus-Thorvalds-Syndrome, drowning in the responsibility for the code. Or maybe you just don't like me; but then, I'm not the only one to be treated like this, so it can't be that. What *I* wish for is a process like this: * Someone writes a major new function/extension to be used on the Wikimedia sites * Someone in charge of these sites (Tim, Brion, whoever) says either ** "OK, that's great, we'll use it right away" OR ** "No, we'll never use that, so don't waste your time" OR ** "We would use it if you fix THIS and change THAT" I once was an author at Nupedia. The approval process was so slow that few people ever wrote there, let alone got an article through the review process. A few of my articles made it afer three to four month. It was a drag, but my article was in the "official" list at the end. But being largely ignored for SEVENTEEN MONTH, writing code and pushing for it to be used, and then being told "nope" would make paid programmers leave a company. I'm sure that, if not you youself, at least others on this mailing list might imagine what that kind of treatment can do for the motivation of a volunteer developer. So, to come back to the original topic, this is *the* chance to answer a few of my questions: * Is /anyone/ actively working on a stable version feature? * If so, is it already more advanced than the code I put into CVS? * Is there some other reason this can't be done based on my code? As I have said many times before, I'm not pushing these things because they are /my/ code. I'm pushing them because IMHO we need them, and AFAIK my code is the only one currently available that is up to the job. If I am in error on one of these two, please tell me so, and do it in clear, simple words, as I see myself unable to convert musings of vague discomfort into code changes. Also, again, I have no problem if you think my code is crap. That might well be the case. *All I want* is that you tell me * what the problems are * if Wikimedia would use the code if I were to fix those problems, or if I shouldn't bother I'll be on the 22C3, so maybe we could discuss these things in person. Magnus