Re: [Wikitech-l] Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat
Am 10.12.2014 02:11, schrieb MZMcBride: Daniel Kinzler wrote: Anyone want to discuss any of the other RFCs? If not, how about we just declare them closed/stalled/abandoned or whatever? Why? It's unclear to me what this would accomplish. If there is nobody to discuss it, and nobody to work on it, it should not be in the queue of things to discuss. Nobody suggested it should be deleted. -- daniel ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat
So, Chad wants to talk about getting rid of actions. Anyone want to discuss any of the other RFCs? If not, how about we just declare them closed/stalled/abandoned or whatever? -- daniel Am 04.12.2014 22:41, schrieb Daniel Kinzler: Hi all! The Architecture Committee, and especially Tim, has been going through the RFC backlog over the last moths. Many where discussed at the weekly RFC chat on Wednesdays, and most of these were resolved. But there are some rather old RFCs left, for which it's a bit unclear whether anyone is still interested in discussing them. So, if you like, go through the list below and tell us whether you would like to discuss an RFC, or think it should be abandoned, or amended, or rewritten, or whatever. * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Refactor_on_File-FileRepo-MediaHandler This is a proposal to refactor media handling code. In particular, it proposes to split backend tasks performed by MediaHandler from UI related tasks. * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Drop_actions_in_favour_of_page_views_and_special_pages This is a proposal to move away from action= in favor of Special pages. Perhaps obsolete, since action handling was rewritten since? * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Itemise_protection This argues that we should support multiple protections to apply to a page at once, e.g. indefinite semi-protection and at the same time a short-term full protection. I'd personally like to discuss this as part of a larger refactoring that would implement protection based on our permission system. Basically, applying protection would mean overriding which group has which permissions on a given page. * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Regex-based_blacklist A proposal to overhaul SpamBlacklist (from 2008). I'd personally be more interested in integrating this with (a rewrite of) AbuseFilter. We could have multiple lists, accessible from AbuseFilter rules. There are also some RFCs that relate to organizational issues rather than MediaWiki features and architecture as such: * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Release_notes_automation Automatically compose RELEASE-NOTES based on special lines in the git commit message. I like the idea! * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Distribution_and_deployment This looks like a grand design, with very little information about what exactly it is supposed to do, and how. It's from 2010 and marked incomplete. Anyone interested? * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/MediaWiki_Foundation This is about creating a governance group for MediaWiki, separate from Wikimedia. The release management for MediaWiki has since been moved to Mark Hershberger and Markus Glaser, but I don't know much about their arrangement with WMF. Is there still demand for a MediaWiki Foundation? Some good ideas here, and some old cruft. I think the most important factor in deciding what to discuss is to see for which RFCs there are people interested in working on them. So, please give us some feedback, ideally until Monday, so we can plan the RFC chat for Wednesday . Cheers, Daniel ___ 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
Re: [Wikitech-l] Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat
Not sure who is allowed to comment here, so I hope mentioning a +1 to the ones which I understand sufficiently and like might be okay. On Dec 4, 2014 10:41 PM, Daniel Kinzler dan...@brightbyte.de wrote: Hi all! ... * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Itemise_protection This argues that we should support multiple protections to apply to a page at once, e.g. indefinite semi-protection and at the same time a short-term full protection. I'd personally like to discuss this as part of a larger refactoring that would implement protection based on our permission system. Basically, applying protection would mean overriding which group has which permissions on a given page. This makes a lot of sense imo. * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Regex-based_blacklist A proposal to overhaul SpamBlacklist (from 2008). I'd personally be more interested in integrating this with (a rewrite of) AbuseFilter. We could have multiple lists, accessible from AbuseFilter rules. Imo not obsolete... There are also some RFCs that relate to organizational issues rather than MediaWiki features and architecture as such: * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Release_notes_automation Automatically compose RELEASE-NOTES based on special lines in the git commit message. I like the idea! Me too :-) Rupert ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat
Am 09.12.2014 17:41, schrieb rupert THURNER: Not sure who is allowed to comment here, so I hope mentioning a +1 to the ones which I understand sufficiently and like might be okay. Anyone show is interrested in dicussing an RFC can chime in here. If you are willing to *work* on an RFC, please say so too. Thanks for the input Rupert! -- daniel ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat
Daniel Kinzler wrote: Anyone want to discuss any of the other RFCs? If not, how about we just declare them closed/stalled/abandoned or whatever? Why? It's unclear to me what this would accomplish. I'm pretty strongly in favor of treating RFCs the same way that we treat bugs (now tasks): they live or die by their merits alone. It's largely irrelevant who the author is or when the last activity was. What's important is whether the RFC covers a reasonable, implement-able idea. I'd much rather see energy put into finding volunteers to help move these RFCs forward than I would see energy put into closing down discussions. MZMcBride ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat
Hi all! The Architecture Committee, and especially Tim, has been going through the RFC backlog over the last moths. Many where discussed at the weekly RFC chat on Wednesdays, and most of these were resolved. But there are some rather old RFCs left, for which it's a bit unclear whether anyone is still interested in discussing them. So, if you like, go through the list below and tell us whether you would like to discuss an RFC, or think it should be abandoned, or amended, or rewritten, or whatever. * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Refactor_on_File-FileRepo-MediaHandler This is a proposal to refactor media handling code. In particular, it proposes to split backend tasks performed by MediaHandler from UI related tasks. * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Drop_actions_in_favour_of_page_views_and_special_pages This is a proposal to move away from action= in favor of Special pages. Perhaps obsolete, since action handling was rewritten since? * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Itemise_protection This argues that we should support multiple protections to apply to a page at once, e.g. indefinite semi-protection and at the same time a short-term full protection. I'd personally like to discuss this as part of a larger refactoring that would implement protection based on our permission system. Basically, applying protection would mean overriding which group has which permissions on a given page. * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Regex-based_blacklist A proposal to overhaul SpamBlacklist (from 2008). I'd personally be more interested in integrating this with (a rewrite of) AbuseFilter. We could have multiple lists, accessible from AbuseFilter rules. There are also some RFCs that relate to organizational issues rather than MediaWiki features and architecture as such: * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Release_notes_automation Automatically compose RELEASE-NOTES based on special lines in the git commit message. I like the idea! * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Distribution_and_deployment This looks like a grand design, with very little information about what exactly it is supposed to do, and how. It's from 2010 and marked incomplete. Anyone interested? * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/MediaWiki_Foundation This is about creating a governance group for MediaWiki, separate from Wikimedia. The release management for MediaWiki has since been moved to Mark Hershberger and Markus Glaser, but I don't know much about their arrangement with WMF. Is there still demand for a MediaWiki Foundation? Some good ideas here, and some old cruft. I think the most important factor in deciding what to discuss is to see for which RFCs there are people interested in working on them. So, please give us some feedback, ideally until Monday, so we can plan the RFC chat for Wednesday . Cheers, Daniel ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat
On Thu Dec 04 2014 at 1:41:43 PM Daniel Kinzler dan...@brightbyte.de wrote: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/ Drop_actions_in_favour_of_page_views_and_special_pages This is a proposal to move away from action= in favor of Special pages. Perhaps obsolete, since action handling was rewritten since? No, it's not obsolete. Actions should still be removed in favor of special pages. Cleaning up action handling was a waste of developer cycles to further enshrine a bad system :) -Chad ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Which old RFCs to discuss on next week's RFC chat
Am 04.12.2014 22:46, schrieb Chad: On Thu Dec 04 2014 at 1:41:43 PM Daniel Kinzler dan...@brightbyte.de wrote: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/ Drop_actions_in_favour_of_page_views_and_special_pages This is a proposal to move away from action= in favor of Special pages. Perhaps obsolete, since action handling was rewritten since? No, it's not obsolete. Actions should still be removed in favor of special pages. Cleaning up action handling was a waste of developer cycles to further enshrine a bad system :) I kind of like the ideas of views on a page though (e.g. history), and the SpecialPage system seems like a bad match. On the other hand, I'd be very happy if we could rewrite EditPage :) -- daniel ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
