My point is that if review of 15 lines of code, takes 6+ months, there is very likely a reason for improvement of current process, which may look as "working". If I knew it works like it actually works I would never tried to work on what I did. So if there is not going to be improvement in this area, there should either be notification that review of code may take years unless you work for wmf on the page describing the current process, or people from community shouldn't be even suggested to work on that.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, in past it worked. I don't know what is broken now, but it apparently doesn't work anymore.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2012/4/4 Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com:
I understand it, that only employees of the foundation are actually permitted to write the code which is going to be deployed to wmf sites. If that is true, it should be noted somewhere, so that volunteers (the people who aren't employees / paid for that) can know that spending time on creating such an extensions, will likely result in it never going to be implemented, thus it's not anything they are suggested to do.
This is not correct - extensions by volunteers are deployed. To cite just two notable examples, Cite and CategoryTree. AFAIK, neither Ævar nor Daniel are or were paid by the WMF; Daniel works at WM-DE, but that's a separate organization.
That said, better documentation about the Foundation's process for deciding what is deployed would be quite useful.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l