This might be a good discussion for the dev summit?
I talked to Moriel about this a couple of days ago. I too am a bit
concerned and feel like this needs a dedicated team, preferably
without a product to manage and mediate/prioritise requests against it
as otherwise the library will be biased towards a single product
rather than all our products.
Ideally, I feel that we need a team determining how it evolves and its
architecture. A big rewrite to split out OOjs UI into
components/making it support mobile /adding a new component to OOjs UI
is not something that should be done in an ad-hoc nature - it should
be done by people with a vision of what this library needs to grow
into, the problem it is solving and knowledge of its history and
mistakes of the past - guardians as such - ensuring that the library
is the best it can be.
I worry about its success if arranged in a cross-functional skunkworks team.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
<bjorsch(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:40 PM, James Forrester
<jforrester(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Short-cut answer to the title question: Me.
I'm glad to hear that you are accepting responsibility for OOjs UI
development! Do you have a timeline on a fix for T113681, or a page that
indicates what higher-priority development you and your team are working on
in the near future?
If OOjs
UI is the thing that we're supposed to be using in the future for
our UI stuff, it's very concerning that further development is blocked on
T113681
"Further development" is not blocked on this task. A few things that some
people want to do are.
Let's not chop logic here. If "a few things that some people want to do"
cannot be done due to T113681, then T113681 is indeed blocking some further
development even if other further development isn't blocked. This email
thread isn't even about
T113681 specifically, it's about that there are no development resources
for fixing things in OOjs UI unless someone is willing to do it as a
skunkworks project, and OOjs UI isn't yet a finished product where we might
be able to justify that.
I'm disappointed that you don't think that the fact that "some things
people want to do" are blocked and no development resources are available
to remedy the situation is cause for concern. When the situation was
brought up in today's Scrum of Scrums, the consensus was that it is indeed
concerning.
Please do not exaggerate for effect to try to get
your way. I'm sorry that
we disagree as to whether your patch belongs in the library in its current
form.
Since you brought it up, let's look at my patch. There are two concrete
blockers that have been raised on my patch. Neither of them actually have
to do with the form of the patch itself.
The long-standing blocker has been disagreement over how the widget can be
internationalized in the context of OOjs UI: The Language and translatewiki
faction wants OOjs UI developers to integrate cldrjs, while the OOjs UI
developers are unwilling to make any decision as to whether cldrjs is the
way to go or translatewiki will just have to deal with providing
translations for month and weekday names as they do for everything else.
The closest we have to a decision is really a cop-out: "shove it into
MediaWiki even though it doesn't belong there, because MediaWiki already
happens to have most of the needed i18n strings and we can't make any
decision here".
In last week's Scrum of Scrums, you brought up T113681 as a new blocker:
OOjs UI is already too large, so we can't add new stuff until someone
reworks it to be able to load individual components. MatmaRex then stated
that no one owns or maintains OOjs UI to the extent that we can expect T113681
to be solved any time soon, which brought the lack of maintainership in
OOjs UI into clear view.
MatmaRex also raised some other objections (disagreement with Design's
design, non-use of moment.js despite moment.js not gaining us anything,
doubt that anyone actually needs <input type="datetime"> despite
evidence
to the contrary), but no one else has agreed with those and he hasn't
deigned to respond to attempts at further discussion in Gerrit.
If you have objections to the actual form of my patch, as opposed to lack
of a willingness to make any decision on the i18n issue or any progress on
the form of OOjs UI as a whole, you should raise them in Gerrit instead of
continuing to sit on them. Although I wonder why you haven't done so
already.
--
Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
Senior Software Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l