John DuHart has embarked on a complete rewrite of the current Mobile Frontend extension, and has decided to name it 'MobileFrontend2'. While we would prefer it if we could work cooperatively to resolve the existing open issues in the current MobileFrontend extension and maintain continuity. It's understandable why John would prefer to undertake his complete rewrite.
(See Extension_talk:MobileFrontend#Issues_with_MobileFrontend_and_possible_rewrite_11940https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:MobileFrontend#Issues_with_MobileFrontend_and_possible_rewrite_11940 )
However, we feel that naming the rewrite 'MobileFrontend2' is problematic as users have already started to confuse it with the current extension.
One thought was to name it to MobileSkin, but it appears that this extension already exists and we quickly reverted that rename attempt. We're curious to hear the rest of the engineering community's perspective and try to gain some consensus as to how best to proceed.
— The Mobile Team
I've read a few of the CR threads and onwiki discussion about this and I'm surprised by the negativity expressed towards the vol. developer for whatever reason whom is planning to work on this, While yes this extension does plan to have the same or similar feature set in the end, it is planning on using a different method for the end result (as to my basic and non codey knowledge) and trying not to threaten the current usability or ability to push the extension to the cluster in the mean time.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Patrick Reilly preilly@wikimedia.org wrote:
John DuHart has embarked on a complete rewrite of the current Mobile Frontend extension, and has decided to name it 'MobileFrontend2'. While we would prefer it if we could work cooperatively to resolve the existing open issues in the current MobileFrontend extension and maintain continuity. It's understandable why John would prefer to undertake his complete rewrite.
I think it's actually better completely out from the current extension for a few reasons,
* MF1 is currently a cluster extension so all the code needs to be reviewed before deployed * MF1 is already regularly deployed (close to weekly iirc) * John is working on having it [MF2] operate in a completely different method than current [MF1] so it would avoid possible breakage and compatibility issues
However, we feel that naming the rewrite 'MobileFrontend2' is problematic as users have already started to confuse it with the current extension.
Whom? It's not like it's really advertised anywhere apart from CR and SVN so it shouldn't be causing that many issues at the current stage.
— The Mobile Team
Nice to see the team working on the weekend.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's actually better completely out from the current extension for a few reasons,
- MF1 is currently a cluster extension so all the code needs to be
reviewed before deployed
- MF1 is already regularly deployed (close to weekly iirc)
- John is working on having it [MF2] operate in a completely different
method than current [MF1] so it would avoid possible breakage and compatibility issues
I think you make good points here - we definitely understand the logic. A lot of the things I think John is planning to address in his new extension are things that we also would like to see in the existing MobileFrontend extension, so hopefully we will be able to still coordinate and work together to minimize duplicated work.
However, we feel that naming the rewrite 'MobileFrontend2' is
problematic
as users have already started to confuse it with the current extension.
Whom? It's not like it's really advertised anywhere apart from CR and SVN so it shouldn't be causing that many issues at the current stage.
Place a '2' after an existing extension name implies that it is an improved, and newer, version of an existing extension. Assuming John will be building his extension as something completely different from the existing MobileFrontend (like you outlined above), it is inappropriate to name it 'MobileFrontend2'. We should work to find an acceptable alternative that makes its functionality clear, and clearly differentiates it from the existing MobileFrontend extension.
I've been looking at the mobile code as well so I can see why a complete rewrite might be appealing although I agree this is dangerous. In terms of names how about something like AlternativeMobileFrontend?
I've also written some unit tests for the existing code (application.js and opensearch.js) which I'm hoping to commit as soon as I get push rights which may help somewhat...
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Arthur Richards arichards@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's actually better completely out from the current extension for a few reasons,
- MF1 is currently a cluster extension so all the code needs to be
reviewed before deployed
- MF1 is already regularly deployed (close to weekly iirc)
- John is working on having it [MF2] operate in a completely different
method than current [MF1] so it would avoid possible breakage and compatibility issues
I think you make good points here - we definitely understand the logic. A lot of the things I think John is planning to address in his new extension are things that we also would like to see in the existing MobileFrontend extension, so hopefully we will be able to still coordinate and work together to minimize duplicated work.
However, we feel that naming the rewrite 'MobileFrontend2' is
problematic
as users have already started to confuse it with the current extension.
Whom? It's not like it's really advertised anywhere apart from CR and SVN so it shouldn't be causing that many issues at the current stage.
Place a '2' after an existing extension name implies that it is an improved, and newer, version of an existing extension. Assuming John will be building his extension as something completely different from the existing MobileFrontend (like you outlined above), it is inappropriate to name it 'MobileFrontend2'. We should work to find an acceptable alternative that makes its functionality clear, and clearly differentiates it from the existing MobileFrontend extension.
-- Arthur Richards Software Engineer, Mobile [[User:Awjrichards]] IRC: awjr +1-415-839-6885 x6687 _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Feb 12, 2012 5:15 AM, "Arthur Richards" arichards@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's actually better completely out from the current extension for a few reasons,
- MF1 is currently a cluster extension so all the code needs to be
reviewed before deployed
- MF1 is already regularly deployed (close to weekly iirc)
- John is working on having it [MF2] operate in a completely different
method than current [MF1] so it would avoid possible breakage and compatibility issues
I think you make good points here - we definitely understand the logic. A lot of the things I think John is planning to address in his new extension are things that we also would like to see in the existing MobileFrontend extension, so hopefully we will be able to still coordinate and work together to minimize duplicated work.
However, we feel that naming the rewrite 'MobileFrontend2' is
problematic
as users have already started to confuse it with the current
extension.
Whom? It's not like it's really advertised anywhere apart from CR and SVN so it shouldn't be causing that many issues at the current stage.
Place a '2' after an existing extension name implies that it is an improved, and newer, version of an existing extension. Assuming John will be building his extension as something completely different from the existing MobileFrontend (like you outlined above), it is inappropriate to name it 'MobileFrontend2'. We should work to find an acceptable
alternative
that makes its functionality clear, and clearly differentiates it from the existing MobileFrontend extension.
If it wasn't a rewrite I wouldn't of placed a two after. Functionality wise, this will be a 1:1 replacement, with back end changes only.
-- Arthur Richards Software Engineer, Mobile [[User:Awjrichards]] IRC: awjr +1-415-839-6885 x6687 _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 12.02.2012, 13:18 K. wrote:
I've read a few of the CR threads and onwiki discussion about this and I'm surprised by the negativity expressed towards the vol. developer for whatever reason whom is planning to work on this, While yes this extension does plan to have the same or similar feature set in the end, it is planning on using a different method for the end result (as to my basic and non codey knowledge) and trying not to threaten the current usability or ability to push the extension to the cluster in the mean time.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Patrick Reilly preilly@wikimedia.org wrote:
John DuHart has embarked on a complete rewrite of the current Mobile Frontend extension, and has decided to name it 'MobileFrontend2'. While we would prefer it if we could work cooperatively to resolve the existing open issues in the current MobileFrontend extension and maintain continuity. It's understandable why John would prefer to undertake his complete rewrite.
While I don't deny the need of changes in MF, I believe that rewriting production code from scratch a is never a good idea. I don't want to elaborate on this myself, just invite evryone to read this great article by Joel Spolsky: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html As the matter of fact, I'm currently in process of refactoring the extension's HTML transformation code, making it isolated, versatile and testable. Believe me, it's much faster than writing from scratch and as a bonus you also retain the original code's long history of bugfixes and improvements - the bonus many people consider to be much more important than development speed.
I think it's actually better completely out from the current extension for a few reasons,
- MF1 is currently a cluster extension so all the code needs to be
reviewed before deployed
- MF1 is already regularly deployed (close to weekly iirc)
- John is working on having it [MF2] operate in a completely different
method than current [MF1] so it would avoid possible breakage and compatibility issues
I think this is an agrument in favor of doing so in a branch, rather than the other way around.
However, we feel that naming the rewrite 'MobileFrontend2' is problematic as users have already started to confuse it with the current extension.
Whom? It's not like it's really advertised anywhere apart from CR and SVN so it shouldn't be causing that many issues at the current stage.
I think Aaron's argument that IDEs may go bonkers from two classes with the same name is pretty compelling, no? What's the problem with doing it in a branch?
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Max Semenik maxsem.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is an agrument in favor of doing so in a branch, rather than the other way around.
A <del>rose</del><ins>folder</ins> by any other name would smell as sweet.
I think Aaron's argument that IDEs may go bonkers from two classes with the same name is pretty compelling, no? What's the problem with doing it in a branch?
Depends if John actually has plans to keep them the same, But since from my understanding is that John is planning close to a complete rewrite of the system, using different technologies and methods to archive his desired outcomes, It might not be such a issue…
I never said there was a issue with doing it in a Branch, But since we basically use them as folders it doesn't really matter where it is, and as I have pointed out, He is redoing the whole thing (apparently) and thus producing a new extension anyway, So there isn't really a issue with doing it under /extensions compared to /branches.
The main concern here seems to be the actual name of said folder, which will more than likely occur no matter where it ends up.
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:58:16 -0800, Patrick Reilly preilly@wikimedia.org wrote:
John DuHart has embarked on a complete rewrite of the current Mobile Frontend extension, and has decided to name it 'MobileFrontend2'. While we would prefer it if we could work cooperatively to resolve the existing open issues in the current MobileFrontend extension and maintain continuity. It's understandable why John would prefer to undertake his complete rewrite.
(See Extension_talk:MobileFrontend#Issues_with_MobileFrontend_and_possible_rewrite_11940https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:MobileFrontend#Issues_with_MobileFrontend_and_possible_rewrite_11940 )
However, we feel that naming the rewrite 'MobileFrontend2' is problematic as users have already started to confuse it with the current extension.
One thought was to name it to MobileSkin, but it appears that this extension already exists and we quickly reverted that rename attempt. We're curious to hear the rest of the engineering community's perspective and try to gain some consensus as to how best to proceed.
— The Mobile Team
We already have SubPageList, SubPageList2, and SubPageList3 sitting around (SubPageList and SubPageList3 are in SVN, SubPageList is supposed to be the one more up to date then either the 2 or 3) inside MW.org and SVN. Heck it's hard to have as much of a naming mess as we've had with Dynamic Page List. So I see no reason for MobileFrontend2 to be forced to be renamed.
Can we just let John DuHart get on with writing the code so that we can have a working 1:1 replacement, put it through all the testing we need to make it the mobile code used on WMF's cluster, and then replace MobileFrontend/ with MobileFrontend2/'s code.
We already have SubPageList, SubPageList2, and SubPageList3 sitting around (SubPageList and SubPageList3 are in SVN, SubPageList is supposed to be the one more up to date then either the 2 or 3) inside MW.org and SVN. Heck it's hard to have as much of a naming mess as we've had with Dynamic Page List. So I see no reason for MobileFrontend2 to be forced to be renamed.
Can we just let John DuHart get on with writing the code so that we can have a working 1:1 replacement, put it through all the testing we need to make it the mobile code used on WMF's cluster, and then replace MobileFrontend/ with MobileFrontend2/'s code.
And for ages there was confusion about which one was actually up to date and usable. At some point everything just said "Use SubPageList, it's the up to date version". Same thing with DynamicPageList. People expect things with what appear to be version numbers. It's unfriendly, at least, to name an extension to look like a newer version.
Is it really too much to ask for it to be named something else?
- Ryan
Just as a note I've made a reply to the other thread, "MobileFrontend & John Du Hart's rewrite"
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Ryan Lane rlane32@gmail.com wrote:
We already have SubPageList, SubPageList2, and SubPageList3 sitting around (SubPageList and SubPageList3 are in SVN, SubPageList is supposed to be the one more up to date then either the 2 or 3) inside MW.org and SVN. Heck it's hard to have as much of a naming mess as we've had with Dynamic Page List. So I see no reason for MobileFrontend2 to be forced to be renamed.
Can we just let John DuHart get on with writing the code so that we can have a working 1:1 replacement, put it through all the testing we need to make it the mobile code used on WMF's cluster, and then replace MobileFrontend/ with MobileFrontend2/'s code.
And for ages there was confusion about which one was actually up to date and usable. At some point everything just said "Use SubPageList, it's the up to date version". Same thing with DynamicPageList. People expect things with what appear to be version numbers. It's unfriendly, at least, to name an extension to look like a newer version.
Is it really too much to ask for it to be named something else?
- Ryan
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org