On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Tony Thomas <01tonythomas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Great to know. I am looking forward at a team to whom
volunteer devs can
ask to review their patchsets to mediawiki-core and its extensions without
an indefinite ETA! (probably I read the team goals wrong).
We will try to be much more aggressive about patch review too, yes. :)
-- brion
Thanks,
Tony Thomas <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:01tonythomas>
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
We'll be primarily working on things for
Wikimedia -- that's what people
donate to WMF to support -- but part of what we want to do is to provide
a
clearer development roadmap which we expect to be
helpful to third-party
users, and clearer points of contact for getting things done.
At this time there are no plans I'm aware of for providing explicit
third-party support contracting from within WMF (as in, paying people to
provide custom installation support, custom development, prioritization
of
custom bug fixes, or explicitly lobbying to get
particular custom
development or ideas merged into core that aren't focused on Wikimedia
needs). I think this would be great to do, but it's just not on the table
for now.
I would strongly encourage any interested and enterprising people who
might
wish to perform such work to organize themselves
to provide such custom
services directly to people who need them and work with us on that
roadmap
& future core development.
-- brion
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Jasmine Smith <jassmith55(a)outlook.com>
wrote:
Out of interest, will this 'platform
team' only work to serve Wikimedia
or
> the wider MediaWiki user community?
>
> One of my vices with the WMF/mediawiki is that development is to
benefit
the WMF.
The WMF uses a number of extensions which are highly sought after by
those
> wanting to set up their own wikis (SecurePoll, CentralAuth, Site
Matrix,
etc) but
provides no support for them, says they are only for WMF but
released anyway, and unless you know PHP, those extensions are locked
off.
I don't feel like the WMFs goal to openly share knowledge applies in
these
> cases, and development of MediaWiki isn't to support the wider
community
of
> users.
>
> > On 3 Apr 2017, at 02:16 pm, "Chad" <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:35 AM Jeroen De Dauw <
jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> This makes it sound like the MediaWiki codebase is pretty well
designed.
>> That is in stark contrast to my view,
which is that it is a typical
big
> >> ball of mud with serious pervasive issues too numerous to list. So
I'm
>>
curious how you arrived at your view.
> As opposed to Wikibase, which is a collection of well-designed
components
> > which nobody (outside of its development team) knows how they are
held
together to form a cohesive product. My guess has
always been magic
and/or
prayers.
Something something glass houses & stones.
-Chad
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
To unsubscribe, go to:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
To unsubscribe, go to:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
To unsubscribe, go to:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
To unsubscribe, go to:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l