*cough* LQT 3 is private because it doesn't exist... see the date of that email (hint, 1st day of April).
If there were to be a project like that I expect it would be very very public indeed. ;-)
Ariel
Στις 05-04-2012, ημέρα Πεμ, και ώρα 09:10 +0200, ο/η Petr Bena έγραψε:
When we talk about the public code, why the development of new software like LQT 3 is private? Why community devs can't participate on that? When is it going to be pushed to readeable repository? I also heard from B Harris that there is a work on new interface design, which some code name, there is no code for it, why?
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 04/04/12 22:58, Petr Bena wrote:
It should be clearly mentioned somewhere on guidelines for developers that attempts to create software which is supposed to be deployed to foundation sites will be likely overlooked.
We don't want to document it when we don't want it to be the case. Documenting it would give the impression that it is an acceptable situation.
Anyway, it certainly isn't the case for core contributions, or for contributions to existing extensions, both of which have a healthy level of community commits. The problem is limited to new extension deployments, and perhaps to major core branch merges like IWTransclusion.
We're not behaving like Oracle does with Java or MySQL, or like Google does with Android. We develop code in public repositories and grant commit access liberally.
You're setting a high standard with your demands, but it happens to be a standard we want to meet. So please, keep nagging and watch this space.
-- Tim Starling
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