Hi everyone,
2012/8/11 Rob Lanphier <robla(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
To recap, Jeroen submitted changeset 14295 in Gerrit
<https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/14295/> with the following
summary:
This commit introduces a new table to hold site
data and configuration,
objects to represent the table, site objects and lists of sites and
associated tests.
The sites code is a more generalized and less
contrived version of the
interwiki code we currently have and is meant to replace it eventually.
This commit does not do away with the existing interwiki code in any way yet.
The reasons for this change where outlined and
discussed on wikitech here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2012-June/060992.html
Thanks Brian for summarizing an important point:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:33 AM, bawolff <bawolff+wn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> First and foremost, I'm a little confused as to what the actual use
> cases here are. Could we get a short summary for those who aren't
> entirely following how wikidata will work, why the current interwiki
> situation is insufficient?
The use case is the following: in order for Wikidata to be able to
provide language links for the wikis using Wikidata, we need to use
consistent global IDs when communicating about the involved wikis
(i.e. if a "client wiki", i.e. a Wikipedia like fr.wp, asks Wikidata
for the language links for an article X, the client and the repo need
to know that e.g. "enwiki" refers to en.wp. Right now the table does
not sport any such field -- the local prefix "en" might be differently
defined on fr.wp and fr.wikinews, for example, and we obviously do not
want to break that).
We further made some configurations explicit that are as of now
embedded in the code using the current interwiki table.
The change also facilitates synchronizing that data, but this is part
of another changeset and of other code.
I am a bit confused here. As far as I can see everyone agrees that
this changeset goes in the right direction. I also did not see
contentions about how the changeset is working that have not been
resolved yet. The reservations that are raised are that the changeset
does not go *far enough*. Considering that we want to keep changesets
small, and that this changeset keeps the old system in place and thus
should not break anything, wouldn't that be a good first step?
If this is the case, why do we not move by taking this step and
continue to discuss about how to iterate further from there to an even
better and more comprehensive solution?
Cheers,
Denny
--
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 |
http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.