Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Wikitech

Extension bundling for 1.18

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia wikitech RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


mhershberger at wikimedia

Jun 8, 2011, 8:22 AM

Post #1 of 46 (2388 views)
Permalink
Extension bundling for 1.18

There has been some talk among developers and others about bundling some
extensions with the tarball. The new installer supports enabling
extensions during installation, so if we're going to do it, I would like
to start bundling them with the 1.18 tarball.

Part of my motivation is that many people seem to install MediaWiki and
expect a wiki that acts very similar to Wikipedia, with which they are
more familiar. Now, part of the problem is documentation — these people
don't understand how the functionality of MediaWiki is partitioned. But
in addition to documentation, we can start providing the most expected
functionality in the tarball.

Immediately, the objection of “bloat” would be raised. To alleviate
this concern, we can still provide a “MediaWiki-lite” tarball with only
the contents of phase3 as before.

Assuming that we are going to put *some* extensions in, we need to
decide which ones. Based on the problem reports in Bugzilla, I think at
least Cite and ParserFunctions should be bundled. Others would be
Gadgets and WikiEditor.

So my list would be:

Cite
ParserFunctions
Gadgets
WikiEditor

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version or
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Extensions_used_on_Wikimedia and
see which you would recommend we include.

Mark.


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


dgerard at gmail

Jun 8, 2011, 8:46 AM

Post #2 of 46 (2351 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On 8 June 2011 16:22, Mark A. Hershberger <mhershberger [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> Part of my motivation is that many people seem to install MediaWiki and
> expect a wiki that acts very similar to Wikipedia, with which they are
> more familiar.  Now, part of the problem is documentation — these people
> don't understand how the functionality of MediaWiki is partitioned.  But
> in addition to documentation, we can start providing the most expected
> functionality in the tarball.


Speaking as a tarball user: Yes please!


> Immediately, the objection of “bloat” would be raised.  To alleviate
> this concern, we can still provide a “MediaWiki-lite” tarball with only
> the contents of phase3 as before.


Works for me.


> So my list would be:
>    Cite
>    ParserFunctions
>    Gadgets
>    WikiEditor


I would also ask for CategoryTree, though my users (office workers, a
mix of geeks and non-geeks) could live without it.

Suggestion: ask on mediawiki-l and mwusers.com, where tarball users
might be found.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


innocentkiller at gmail

Jun 8, 2011, 8:49 AM

Post #3 of 46 (2353 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Mark A. Hershberger
<mhershberger [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> Immediately, the objection of “bloat” would be raised.  To alleviate
> this concern, we can still provide a “MediaWiki-lite” tarball with only
> the contents of phase3 as before.
>

Since we're going down the road of offering different tarballs, can
we also get an "ultra-lite" that only has MessagesEn?

-Chad

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


jeroendedauw at gmail

Jun 8, 2011, 9:00 AM

Post #4 of 46 (2347 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

Hey,

> Assuming that we are going to put *some* extensions in, we need to decide
which ones.

As some might remember, I raised the question of the Validator extension [0]
could be included in the tarball earlier this year [1]. This extensions goal
is facilitating features in other extensions, which makes it somewhat
unique, and is I think a good reason to include it in the tarball. It
currently has 8 other extensions that are directly dependent on it, and at
least a dozen more that are indirectly dependent on it, so having it in the
tarball would make using it easier for extension devs.

[0] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Validator
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/wikitech-l [at] lists/msg11876.html

Cheers

--
Jeroen De Dauw
http://www.bn2vs.com
Don't panic. Don't be evil.
--
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


tparscal at wikimedia

Jun 8, 2011, 9:32 AM

Post #5 of 46 (2351 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

While Vector is the default skin, the Vector extension should probably be
bundled too.

- Trevor

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw [at] gmail>wrote:

> Hey,
>
> > Assuming that we are going to put *some* extensions in, we need to decide
> which ones.
>
> As some might remember, I raised the question of the Validator extension
> [0]
> could be included in the tarball earlier this year [1]. This extensions
> goal
> is facilitating features in other extensions, which makes it somewhat
> unique, and is I think a good reason to include it in the tarball. It
> currently has 8 other extensions that are directly dependent on it, and at
> least a dozen more that are indirectly dependent on it, so having it in the
> tarball would make using it easier for extension devs.
>
> [0] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Validator
> [1]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/wikitech-l [at] lists/msg11876.html
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Jeroen De Dauw
> http://www.bn2vs.com
> Don't panic. Don't be evil.
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l [at] lists
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


krinklemail at gmail

Jun 8, 2011, 9:36 AM

Post #6 of 46 (2348 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
>
> Assuming that we are going to put *some* extensions in, we need to
> decide which ones. Based on the problem reports in Bugzilla, I
> think at
> least Cite and ParserFunctions should be bundled. Others would be
> Gadgets and WikiEditor.
>
> So my list would be:
>
> Cite
> ParserFunctions
> Gadgets
> WikiEditor
>
> Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version or
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Extensions_used_on_Wikimedia
> and
> see which you would recommend we include.
>
> Mark.
>

I'd also include:
* Vector

Maybe worth consideration:
* Renameuser
* CategoryTree
* DismissableSiteNotice[1]
* ExpandTemplates


--
Krinkle

[1] Perhaps move this to core ? Probably super easy to do with modern
javascript (if needed, could be disableable thru LocalSettings.php

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


tor at wikia-inc

Jun 8, 2011, 10:25 AM

Post #7 of 46 (2346 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Mark A. Hershberger
<mhershberger [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> So my list would be:
>
> Cite
> ParserFunctions
> Gadgets
> WikiEditor

ConfirmEdit (rationale: every single public wiki I've setup dies without this)

--
Lucas 'TOR' Garczewski
Community Engineer
tor [at] wikia-inc

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


lists at caseybrown

Jun 8, 2011, 1:01 PM

Post #8 of 46 (2345 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Mark A. Hershberger
<mhershberger [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> Assuming that we are going to put *some* extensions in, we need to
> decide which ones.

[..]

> Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version or
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Extensions_used_on_Wikimedia and
> see which you would recommend we include.

I'd suggest that you also look at "Suggestions for extensions to be
merged into core":
<http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Suggestions_for_extensions_to_be_merged_into_core>

The point of that page is to list extensions that we love and are
frequently used. If they're not already in core, we should probably
do the next best thing and bundle them.

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


dgerard at gmail

Jun 8, 2011, 1:22 PM

Post #9 of 46 (2354 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On 8 June 2011 21:01, Casey Brown <lists [at] caseybrown> wrote:

> I'd suggest that you also look at "Suggestions for extensions to be
> merged into core":
> <http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Suggestions_for_extensions_to_be_merged_into_core>
> The point of that page is to list extensions that we love and are
> frequently used.  If they're not already in core, we should probably
> do the next best thing and bundle them.


Ooh, renameuser would be way useful in intranet land. I've had to
twiddle in the database at all ever, which is deeply fragile and
annoying ...


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


robla at wikimedia

Jun 8, 2011, 1:25 PM

Post #10 of 46 (2345 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Mark A. Hershberger <
mhershberger [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> There has been some talk among developers and others about bundling some
> extensions with the tarball. The new installer supports enabling
> extensions during installation, so if we're going to do it, I would like
> to start bundling them with the 1.18 tarball.
>

This would be 1.19 at the earliest. 1.18 is already branched, and if we're
aspiring to do much more frequent releases, the last thing we should do is
to complicate a 1.18 release by trying to add more features into the branch.
While this may not be a relatively small change, there are *lots* of
features that are "small changes".

I'm assuming our tarball release process currently involves doing "svn
export" on the phase3 directory of the release branch. After that, I have
no idea what sort of post-processing (if any) we do (er, Tim does).
Clearly, having some extensions in there is something that makes things a
little more complicated. Probably not rocket science, but it is work. I
would prefer that we have a plan and a developer lined up to do this work
before saying this is something that we're going to do. Who is willing to
take this on? I would very much prefer if this were a volunteer rather than
a WMF staff member.

Rob
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


roan.kattouw at gmail

Jun 8, 2011, 1:30 PM

Post #11 of 46 (2348 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Rob Lanphier <robla [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> This would be 1.19 at the earliest. 1.18 is already branched, and if we're
> aspiring to do much more frequent releases, the last thing we should do is
> to complicate a 1.18 release by trying to add more features into the branch.
> While this may not be a relatively small change, there are *lots* of
> features that are "small changes".
>
This argument completely misses the point. The (probably trivial)
extra work is in the tarballing process and doesn't touch anything
else. There's no way it can subtly break things.

> I'm assuming our tarball release process currently involves doing "svn
> export" on the phase3 directory of the release branch. After that, I have
> no idea what sort of post-processing (if any) we do (er, Tim does).
> Clearly, having some extensions in there is something that makes things a
> little more complicated. Probably not rocket science, but it is work. I
> would prefer that we have a plan and a developer lined up to do this work
> before saying this is something that we're going to do. Who is willing to
> take this on? I would very much prefer if this were a volunteer rather than
> a WMF staff member.
>
Why don't we first ask Tim how complicated it would be, and get
someone else to do it if it's more than 2-3 hours of work? I'm also
not sure the scripts Tim uses to create a tarball are even in SVN
anywhere, maybe he'd be willing to share them if they're not public
already.

Roan Kattouw (Catrope)

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


brion at pobox

Jun 8, 2011, 1:41 PM

Post #12 of 46 (2344 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Roan Kattouw <roan.kattouw [at] gmail> wrote:

> Why don't we first ask Tim how complicated it would be, and get
> someone else to do it if it's more than 2-3 hours of work? I'm also
> not sure the scripts Tim uses to create a tarball are even in SVN
> anywhere, maybe he'd be willing to share them if they're not public
> already.
>

They've been in SVN for some time (and luckily Tim rewrote them in Python
from my older horrid bash code ;)

http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/tools/make-release/

Basically, we do a SVN export, chop out a few unneeded files, build a
tarball and a patch, and GPG-sign them. Also checking out some extensions
and dropping them in would not be very difficult to throw in.

Currently the installer's support for extensions is limited; some won't
actually set up right, and we don't handle dependencies well, but
self-contained stuff like ParserFunctions and Gadgets should be pretty
trivial.

It would I think be possible to stash a few things in for 1.18 release with
no problem (and no new code, just tossing the existing branched extensions
into the tarball) if we wanted to, though they wouldn't be automatically
activated at install unless the user actually selects them. Actually making
things default would need some more work, and either way we'd want to do a
little testing. :)

-- brion
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


innocentkiller at gmail

Jun 8, 2011, 1:41 PM

Post #13 of 46 (2347 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Roan Kattouw <roan.kattouw [at] gmail> wrote:
> Why don't we first ask Tim how complicated it would be, and get
> someone else to do it if it's more than 2-3 hours of work? I'm also
> not sure the scripts Tim uses to create a tarball are even in SVN
> anywhere, maybe he'd be willing to share them if they're not public
> already.
>
> Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
>

They are, /trunk/tools/make-release

-Chad

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


innocentkiller at gmail

Jun 8, 2011, 1:43 PM

Post #14 of 46 (2346 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Brion Vibber <brion [at] pobox> wrote:
> Currently the installer's support for extensions is limited;

Yes :(

> some won't actually set up right,

Examples?

> and we don't handle dependencies well,

s/well/at all/

> but
> self-contained stuff like ParserFunctions and Gadgets should be pretty
> trivial.
>

I agree :)

-Chad

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


brion at pobox

Jun 8, 2011, 1:48 PM

Post #15 of 46 (2346 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Chad <innocentkiller [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Brion Vibber <brion [at] pobox> wrote:
> > Currently the installer's support for extensions is limited;
>
> Yes :(
>
> > some won't actually set up right,
>
> Examples?
>

Whatever was listed in bugzilla on that one bug where something didn't run
its installer stages or something? I don't remember; the point is that we
know we don't hook all hooks etc.

> and we don't handle dependencies well,
>
> s/well/at all/
>

exactly. :)

>
> > but
> > self-contained stuff like ParserFunctions and Gadgets should be pretty
> > trivial.
> >
>
> I agree :)
>

\o/

-- brion
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


innocentkiller at gmail

Jun 8, 2011, 1:50 PM

Post #16 of 46 (2344 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Brion Vibber <brion [at] pobox> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Chad <innocentkiller [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Brion Vibber <brion [at] pobox> wrote:
>> > Currently the installer's support for extensions is limited;
>>
>> Yes :(
>>
>> > some won't actually set up right,
>>
>> Examples?
>>
>
> Whatever was listed in bugzilla on that one bug where something didn't run
> its installer stages or something? I don't remember; the point is that we
> know we don't hook all hooks etc.
>

That would be bug 28983, which is already fixed in trunk.

-Chad

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


brion at pobox

Jun 8, 2011, 2:09 PM

Post #17 of 46 (2347 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Chad <innocentkiller [at] gmail> wrote:

>
> > Whatever was listed in bugzilla on that one bug where something didn't
> run
> > its installer stages or something? I don't remember; the point is that we
> > know we don't hook all hooks etc.
> >
>
> That would be bug 28983, which is already fixed in trunk.
>

Objection withdrawn then. :D

-- brion
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


z at mzmcbride

Jun 8, 2011, 3:08 PM

Post #18 of 46 (2336 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

Casey Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Mark A. Hershberger
> <mhershberger [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>> Assuming that we are going to put *some* extensions in, we need to
>> decide which ones.
>
> [..]
>
>> Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version or
>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Extensions_used_on_Wikimedia and
>> see which you would recommend we include.
>
> I'd suggest that you also look at "Suggestions for extensions to be
> merged into core" on MediaWiki.org.
>
> The point of that page is to list extensions that we love and are
> frequently used. If they're not already in core, we should probably
> do the next best thing and bundle them.

I'd also suggest reading bug 26261.[1] I'm kind of surprised this wasn't
mentioned in the opening post given that most replies on this mailing list
are echoing the bug's comments.

MZMcBride

[1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26261



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


robla at wikimedia

Jun 8, 2011, 3:21 PM

Post #19 of 46 (2336 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Roan Kattouw <roan.kattouw [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Rob Lanphier <robla [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>> This would be 1.19 at the earliest. 1.18 is already branched, and if we're
>> aspiring to do much more frequent releases, the last thing we should do is
>> to complicate a 1.18 release by trying to add more features into the branch.
>> While this may not be a relatively small change, there are *lots* of
>> features that are "small changes".
>>
> This argument completely misses the point. The (probably trivial)
> extra work is in the tarballing process and doesn't touch anything
> else. There's no way it can subtly break things.

You're willing to say there are exactly *zero* fixes that would be
needed to be done in trunk and merged into 1.18 as a result of making
this change?

I'm not going to dig my heels in on this one. However, I'd really
like to encourage everyone to avoid piling non-critical into a release
branch after it gets branched, and have the patience to wait for the
following release. That's the only way we're ever going to speed up
the release train.

>> I'm assuming our tarball release process currently involves doing "svn
>> export" on the phase3 directory of the release branch. After that, I have
>> no idea what sort of post-processing (if any) we do (er, Tim does).
>> Clearly, having some extensions in there is something that makes things a
>> little more complicated. Probably not rocket science, but it is work. I
>> would prefer that we have a plan and a developer lined up to do this work
>> before saying this is something that we're going to do. Who is willing to
>> take this on? I would very much prefer if this were a volunteer rather than
>> a WMF staff member.
>>
> Why don't we first ask Tim how complicated it would be, and get
> someone else to do it if it's more than 2-3 hours of work? I'm also
> not sure the scripts Tim uses to create a tarball are even in SVN
> anywhere, maybe he'd be willing to share them if they're not public
> already.

Even if it's 2-3 hours of work, I still would prefer that a volunteer
gets involved in this area. Tim in particular has an overabundance of
2-3 hour tasks.

Rob

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


mail at tgries

Jun 8, 2011, 3:31 PM

Post #20 of 46 (2337 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

I like to have these "urgently" added in the tarball by default:

* TitleKey !!!!
* Cite !!!!

Tom
Attachments: signature.asc (0.48 KB)


roan.kattouw at gmail

Jun 8, 2011, 3:33 PM

Post #21 of 46 (2334 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Rob Lanphier <robla [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> You're willing to say there are exactly *zero* fixes that would be
> needed to be done in trunk and merged into 1.18 as a result of making
> this change?
>
I guess the worst that could happen is that one of the bundled
extension breaks core in some way, in which case it's slightly worse
because we bundle the extension. Other than that, core is unaffected.

> I'm not going to dig my heels in on this one. However, I'd really
> like to encourage everyone to avoid piling non-critical into a release
> branch after it gets branched, and have the patience to wait for the
> following release. That's the only way we're ever going to speed up
> the release train.
>
I'm not particularly attached to it, and I think we can wait till 1.19
if we want to. I just didn't think your arguments made much sense.

> Even if it's 2-3 hours of work, I still would prefer that a volunteer
> gets involved in this area. Tim in particular has an overabundance of
> 2-3 hour tasks.
>
Yeah, that's true. A brief assessment by Tim as to whether this is as
easy as I think it is (for someone who speaks Python) would be nice
though.

Roan Kattouw (Catrope)

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


innocentkiller at gmail

Jun 8, 2011, 3:37 PM

Post #22 of 46 (2339 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Roan Kattouw <roan.kattouw [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Rob Lanphier <robla [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>> You're willing to say there are exactly *zero* fixes that would be
>> needed to be done in trunk and merged into 1.18 as a result of making
>> this change?
>>
> I guess the worst that could happen is that one of the bundled
> extension breaks core in some way, in which case it's slightly worse
> because we bundle the extension. Other than that, core is unaffected.
>

This.

>> I'm not going to dig my heels in on this one.  However, I'd really
>> like to encourage everyone to avoid piling non-critical into a release
>> branch after it gets branched, and have the patience to wait for the
>> following release.  That's the only way we're ever going to speed up
>> the release train.
>>
> I'm not particularly attached to it, and I think we can wait till 1.19
> if we want to. I just didn't think your arguments made much sense.
>

Also this. I think it's a good idea, but not worth putting aside 1.17 or
1.18 work to make it happen. Even if it didn't happen until 1.20, I
don't think it'd be a huge deal...we'd just be maintaining the status quo.

In the long run, I think it makes zero difference whatsoever, as once
Real Extension Management becomes a reality, it shouldn't matter at
all whether the extension was in the tarball or not--and in fact, I would
argue we should keep them *out* of the tarball at that point, to keep
download size to a minimum and since hopefully installing extensions
would've become painless.

-Chad

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


mail at tgries

Jun 8, 2011, 3:42 PM

Post #23 of 46 (2337 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

Am 09.06.2011 00:37, schrieb Chad:
> Also this. I think it's a good idea, but not worth putting aside 1.17 or
> 1.18 work to make it happen.
I also think we are _not_ in a hurry to add extensions _now_
We should - starting now - take out time to collect (on a MediaWiki page
) opinions what extensions could be candidates for a roll-out.
Attachments: signature.asc (0.48 KB)


z at mzmcbride

Jun 8, 2011, 3:44 PM

Post #24 of 46 (2336 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
> As some might remember, I raised the question of the Validator extension [0]
> could be included in the tarball earlier this year [1]. This extensions goal
> is facilitating features in other extensions, which makes it somewhat
> unique, and is I think a good reason to include it in the tarball. It
> currently has 8 other extensions that are directly dependent on it, and at
> least a dozen more that are indirectly dependent on it, so having it in the
> tarball would make using it easier for extension devs.
>
> [0] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Validator
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/wikitech-l [at] lists/msg11876.html

Are you familiar with ExtensionFunctions.php? This extension kind of reminds
me of it. I only briefly read through the docs, but it seems like the kind
of code that should be in core, particularly if multiple extensions are
relying on it. MediaWiki administration is already cumbersome; added
dependencies should be killed when possible, not encouraged.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


brion at pobox

Jun 8, 2011, 4:17 PM

Post #25 of 46 (2343 views)
Permalink
Re: Extension bundling for 1.18 [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Rob Lanphier <robla [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Roan Kattouw <roan.kattouw [at] gmail>
> wrote:
> > This argument completely misses the point. The (probably trivial)
> > extra work is in the tarballing process and doesn't touch anything
> > else. There's no way it can subtly break things.
>
> You're willing to say there are exactly *zero* fixes that would be
> needed to be done in trunk and merged into 1.18 as a result of making
> this change?
>

Trunk and 1.18 *and* 1.17 already have this ability; all that's required is
to drop some directories into the tarball, and they'll be available for
selection in the installer.

If any extension doesn't install & work successfully in this manner, don't
put it in the tarball.

-- brion
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia wikitech RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.