Marcus Buck schreven:
An'n 02.09.2010 22:50, hett Aryeh Gregor schreven:
This is exactly what Bugzilla does. In practice, of course, the overwhelming majority of feature requests there are not fixed, but again, this is not a problem with the process and it cannot be fixed or even mitigated by changing the process.
It certainly can be improved. As I said, my main concern is not bugfixing, but development. Like the implementation of a common image repository, parser functions, single user login to name some from the past. The HTML5 upload is smaller, but it's a new feature and not a bugfix.
Bugzilla is also for enhacements, not only for bugfixes Having the proposal in bugzilla gives a point where it is recorded and hopefully taken up at some time. As opposed to an email which gets buried int he archive. Although if there's no reaction to the bug, a note here eg. after a week may help to raise attention.
You may also come to #mediawiki in irc to talk with us about specific features (How likely is that we can get a foobar bazinastic implemented soon?).
Nikola Smolenski has done great work on Interwiki transclusion. But nothing has happened since two years. If I were a member of the tech department at Wikimedia, I'd be enthused and would put all my energy in reviewing his code, straigthening out any remaining problems and making it real as soon as possible. I mean, making interwiki bots obsolete, making obsolete like hundreds of thousands edits per day, that would be an amazing improvement, wouldn't it? This dormancy worries me.
Have you seen http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Peter17/Reasonably_efficient_interwiki_tr... recent GSOC project? It's still not merged to trunk, but it's there. And do note that you can help reviewing the code, even if you can't give it the final ok. Any problem you spot now, is an error less to be found later. You can follow MediaWiki (core & extensions) development at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki