As I mentioned in a prior email, I have been converting UsabilityInitiative/* extensions to work with ResourceLoader, and in the process removing their dependency on UsabilityInitiative.php. Some of these extensions were not really using any functionality in UsabilityInitiative.php, so their "conversion" was more like cleanup and removing a line that included it unnecessarily. The remaining extensions (WikiEditor, Vector, ClickTracking and PrefStats) are now only compatible with MediaWiki 1.17 because they depend on ResourceLoader functionality.
I'm hoping these extensions, especially WikiEditor and Vector can be examples of how to make use of ResourceLoader in extensions. Please note: if you are working on code that is aimed at deployment this year, you should not depend on ResourceLoader. We hope to have it running live in November, but that's not a guarantee.
Please see the README for UsabilityInitiative (http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/UsabilityInitiati...) which you will notice ends in calling out that these extensions should be moved. I've already moved Vector and WikiEditor, and the remaining ones will likely be moved soon if there are no objections.
This should put the last nail in the coffin for UsabilityInitiative. (the extension that is, the grant has been over for ages!)
- Trevor
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Trevor Parscal tparscal@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm hoping these extensions, especially WikiEditor and Vector can be examples of how to make use of ResourceLoader in extensions. Please note: if you are working on code that is aimed at deployment this year, you should not depend on ResourceLoader. We hope to have it running live in November, but that's not a guarantee.
Is there any sort of timeline for moving this stuff into core? I don't see any (long term) reason to leave these as extensions.
-Chad
Chad wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Trevor Parscal tparscal@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm hoping these extensions, especially WikiEditor and Vector can be examples of how to make use of ResourceLoader in extensions. Please note: if you are working on code that is aimed at deployment this year, you should not depend on ResourceLoader. We hope to have it running live in November, but that's not a guarantee.
Is there any sort of timeline for moving this stuff into core? I don't see any (long term) reason to leave these as extensions.
I think nearly everyone agrees that most of this should be in core. Saying so is trolling, though.
MZMcBride
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I think nearly everyone agrees that most of this should be in core. Saying so is trolling, though.
Don't see how it's trolling. But then again, maybe I should defer to your expertise in the area.
-Chad
Chad wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I think nearly everyone agrees that most of this should be in core. Saying so is trolling, though.
Don't see how it's trolling. But then again, maybe I should defer to your expertise in the area.
I don't either. :-)
Creating an extension called "Vector" when there's already a skin called "Vector" is absolutely needlessly confusing. This builds upon the confusion of having a skin called "Vector" while having a sub-extension called "UsabilityInitiative/Vector".
It creates more work in the future because there are now two extensions (UsabilityInitiative/Vector and Vector) that have to maintained (translated, etc.) and eventually cleaned up after when the code is finally put in core. It also creates more work for wiki administrators who have to keep track of what's what and install/maintain extensions that shouldn't be extensions in the first place.
An artificial deadline has been erected for the release of MediaWiki 1.17 that appears to have no basis in reality (if there's an updated roadmap or official target release date for 1.17, feel free to link me to it), but that was the explanation I was given for the hasty changes. More discussion is available here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/73030
MZMcBride
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I think nearly everyone agrees that most of this should be in core. Saying so is trolling, though.
Implying that particular groups of developers aim to suppress particular technical opinions, without naming the developers or giving any supporting evidence, is definitely trolling. I think we'd all appreciate it if you stopped doing it. You're clearly capable of stating intelligent opinions, and it's really not necessary for you to add veiled (or unveiled) accusations and other unproductive content to your posts. This post would have been much improved if the second sentence were deleted, and your follow-up post could have done without language such as "artificial", "hasty", "appears to have no basis in reality" when speaking about a developer's actions. It's not helpful. Please consider this when you make future posts, and revise accordingly. Thank you.
Hi,
Le lundi 20 septembre 2010 à 18:40 -0400, Aryeh Gregor a écrit :
Implying that particular groups of developers aim to suppress particular technical opinions, without naming the developers or giving any supporting evidence, is definitely trolling. I think we'd all appreciate it if you stopped doing it. You're clearly capable of stating intelligent opinions, and it's really not necessary for you to add veiled (or unveiled) accusations and other unproductive content to your posts. This post would have been much improved if the second sentence were deleted, and your follow-up post could have done without language such as "artificial", "hasty", "appears to have no basis in reality" when speaking about a developer's actions. It's not helpful.
I agree with most of what you say. However, it doesn't help that one's (valuable) technical opinions are sometimes dismissed as "trolling" based solely on the person emitting them, and not based on the merits of the opinion (especially when the person is making efforts to be productive).
Just saying the world's not black and white :)
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Implying that particular groups of developers aim to suppress particular technical opinions, without naming the developers or giving any supporting evidence, is definitely trolling.
You think calling specific individuals out ("getting personal") would _improve_ matters? Interesting. Saying "thanks for your input" seems like a pretty clear example of developers trying to suppress (or dismiss, rather) particular technical opinions. I included a link to the relevant comments in the follow-up e-mail.
This post would have been much improved if the second sentence were deleted, and your follow-up post could have done without language such as "artificial", "hasty", "appears to have no basis in reality" when speaking about a developer's actions.
Quite a few people are under the impression that MediaWiki 1.17 will be released in October or November of this year. I've seen nothing publicly that supports this, so until then, I'll treat it as dubious. I think it's reasonable to do so. I asked in the follow-up e-mail if I was simply missing an announcement somewhere about an updated roadmap or deadline, which is entirely possible.
MZMcBride
Hoi, At translatewiki.net we have identified the "most often used" messages. They consist of only core messages. We also keep them the same for as long as possible because they are a requirement for new languages conform the language policy.
Because of the Usability Initiative moving into core, it would be extremely useful to know if there is a known agenda for this. It has already been announced that we want to update the composition of the "most often used" messages and it stands to reason that many of messages of the former Usability Initiative will be among them. Thanks, GerardM
On 20 September 2010 22:35, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Trevor Parscal tparscal@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm hoping these extensions, especially WikiEditor and Vector can be examples of how to make use of ResourceLoader in extensions. Please note: if you are working on code that is aimed at deployment this year, you should not depend on ResourceLoader. We hope to have it running live in November, but that's not a guarantee.
Is there any sort of timeline for moving this stuff into core? I don't see any (long term) reason to leave these as extensions.
-Chad
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
It has not been decided that any UsabilityInitiative code is moving into core, it's only been suggested.
- Trevor
On 9/21/10 3:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, At translatewiki.net we have identified the "most often used" messages. They consist of only core messages. We also keep them the same for as long as possible because they are a requirement for new languages conform the language policy.
Because of the Usability Initiative moving into core, it would be extremely useful to know if there is a known agenda for this. It has already been announced that we want to update the composition of the "most often used" messages and it stands to reason that many of messages of the former Usability Initiative will be among them. Thanks, GerardM
On 20 September 2010 22:35, Chadinnocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Trevor Parscaltparscal@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm hoping these extensions, especially WikiEditor and Vector can be examples of how to make use of ResourceLoader in extensions. Please note: if you are working on code that is aimed at deployment this year, you should not depend on ResourceLoader. We hope to have it running live in November, but that's not a guarantee.
Is there any sort of timeline for moving this stuff into core? I don't see any (long term) reason to leave these as extensions.
-Chad
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
Trevor Parscal wrote:
I'm hoping these extensions, especially WikiEditor and Vector can be examples of how to make use of ResourceLoader in extensions. Please note: if you are working on code that is aimed at deployment this year, you should not depend on ResourceLoader. We hope to have it running live in November, but that's not a guarantee.
I hope that means we will be running 1.16wmf5 branched post-r72349 in November...
On 9/20/10 1:35 PM, Platonides wrote:
Trevor Parscal wrote:
I'm hoping these extensions, especially WikiEditor and Vector can be examples of how to make use of ResourceLoader in extensions. Please note: if you are working on code that is aimed at deployment this year, you should not depend on ResourceLoader. We hope to have it running live in November, but that's not a guarantee.
I hope that means we will be running 1.16wmf5 branched post-r72349 in November...
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
That sounds like a Tim Starling question.
- Trevor
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org