Re: [Wikitech-l] VisualEditor roadmap - extensibility within MediaWiki?

2016-01-22 Thread Eran Rosenthal 
Good question (and no good answer) and I think it address to the weakest
point of VE documentation  - it doesn't have enough code examples, or high
view documentation.
(the best answer you can get may be
https://doc.wikimedia.org/VisualEditor/master/#!/api/mw.libs.ve-method-addPlugin
)


My advice is to AVOID using this documentation - this is usually micro
level documentation, and it is not enough.
You should prefer to grep the codebase to get some working examples and
craft it.
Here is the example of graph:
http://git.wikimedia.org/tree/mediawiki%2Fextensions%2FGraph.git/master/modules%2Fve-graph

and old (possibly outdated) but good into and high level documentation for
VE:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/API






On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Daniel Barrett  wrote:

> Thank you! Which class on this page is the best starting point for
> learning to write a plugin?
>
> https://doc.wikimedia.org/VisualEditor/master/
>
> DanB
>
>
> 
> From: Wikitech-l [mailto:wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Trevor Parscal
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:28 AM
> To: Wikimedia developers
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] VisualEditor roadmap - extensibility within
> MediaWiki?
>
> VisualEditor is very extendable by design. You can do pretty much anything
> you want with a plugin, and we've demonstrated this with many existing
> plugins that provide all sorts of interesting features.
>
> The APIs for adding features to VisualEditor, while perhaps not as well
> documented as we'd like them to be, have existed for years and are now
> quite stable.
>
> We have seen extensions such as math, graph and score be integrated into
> VisualEditor by developers who are relatively new to the code base.
> However, direct communication with the team was still important to those
> efforts.
>
> The documentation that does exist is generated from code comments, and the
> VisualEditor code base is particularly well documented. There was
> a supplemental documentation effort for OOjs UI this time last year, and I
> think that worked out pretty well. This may be something we can do in the
> next six months, but there are not yet any concrete plans to do so.
>
> Ed Sanders is a good person to be in touch with, along with others on the
> VosualEditor team, who are easily reached on IRC. See the MediaWiki page on
> VisialEditor for details.
>
> - Trevor
>
> On Thursday, January 21, 2016, Daniel Barrett  wrote:
>
> > I was looking through the VisualEditor roadmap (
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Roadmap) and did not notice
> > anything about third-party MediaWiki extensions for the editor. Did I
> > miss it?
> >
> > I do see plans for "non-Mediawiki" extensions (under "Release for
> > third-party non-MediaWiki users"), and also for Mediawiki admins to
> > "easily install and use VisualEditor" (under "Release for third-party
> > MediaWiki users"), but nothing about extending it within MediaWiki. For
> > example, adding a button or menu item to insert a particular parser tag.
> >
> > Is this by design?
> >
> > I did notice "Non-template transclusions" on the roadmap, which looks
> like
> > a way to insert parser tags & parser functions if you already know their
> > name (the way template transclusions work right now). That will be a big
> > help. However, for (say) inserting a given parser tag, it would be great
> if
> > we could easily add a button or menu item for it.
> >
> > Thank you very much for any info.
> > DanB
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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
> ___
> 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] VisualEditor roadmap - extensibility within MediaWiki?

2016-01-22 Thread Marielle Volz 
I found Eran's gadget tutorial to be the most helpful piece of
documentation for getting a plug-in up and running quickly:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Gadgets

For converting a gadget to an extension, as others have mentioned, looking
at actual extensions were the most helpful.


On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Eran Rosenthal  wrote:

> Good question (and no good answer) and I think it address to the weakest
> point of VE documentation  - it doesn't have enough code examples, or high
> view documentation.
> (the best answer you can get may be
>
> https://doc.wikimedia.org/VisualEditor/master/#!/api/mw.libs.ve-method-addPlugin
> )
>
>
> My advice is to AVOID using this documentation - this is usually micro
> level documentation, and it is not enough.
> You should prefer to grep the codebase to get some working examples and
> craft it.
> Here is the example of graph:
>
> http://git.wikimedia.org/tree/mediawiki%2Fextensions%2FGraph.git/master/modules%2Fve-graph
>
> and old (possibly outdated) but good into and high level documentation for
> VE:
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/API
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Daniel Barrett 
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you! Which class on this page is the best starting point for
> > learning to write a plugin?
> >
> > https://doc.wikimedia.org/VisualEditor/master/
> >
> > DanB
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > From: Wikitech-l [mailto:wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Trevor Parscal
> > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:28 AM
> > To: Wikimedia developers
> > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] VisualEditor roadmap - extensibility within
> > MediaWiki?
> >
> > VisualEditor is very extendable by design. You can do pretty much
> anything
> > you want with a plugin, and we've demonstrated this with many existing
> > plugins that provide all sorts of interesting features.
> >
> > The APIs for adding features to VisualEditor, while perhaps not as well
> > documented as we'd like them to be, have existed for years and are now
> > quite stable.
> >
> > We have seen extensions such as math, graph and score be integrated into
> > VisualEditor by developers who are relatively new to the code base.
> > However, direct communication with the team was still important to those
> > efforts.
> >
> > The documentation that does exist is generated from code comments, and
> the
> > VisualEditor code base is particularly well documented. There was
> > a supplemental documentation effort for OOjs UI this time last year, and
> I
> > think that worked out pretty well. This may be something we can do in the
> > next six months, but there are not yet any concrete plans to do so.
> >
> > Ed Sanders is a good person to be in touch with, along with others on the
> > VosualEditor team, who are easily reached on IRC. See the MediaWiki page
> on
> > VisialEditor for details.
> >
> > - Trevor
> >
> > On Thursday, January 21, 2016, Daniel Barrett  wrote:
> >
> > > I was looking through the VisualEditor roadmap (
> > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Roadmap) and did not
> notice
> > > anything about third-party MediaWiki extensions for the editor. Did I
> > > miss it?
> > >
> > > I do see plans for "non-Mediawiki" extensions (under "Release for
> > > third-party non-MediaWiki users"), and also for Mediawiki admins to
> > > "easily install and use VisualEditor" (under "Release for third-party
> > > MediaWiki users"), but nothing about extending it within MediaWiki. For
> > > example, adding a button or menu item to insert a particular parser
> tag.
> > >
> > > Is this by design?
> > >
> > > I did notice "Non-template transclusions" on the roadmap, which looks
> > like
> > > a way to insert parser tags & parser functions if you already know
> their
> > > name (the way template transclusions work right now). That will be a
> big
> > > help. However, for (say) inserting a given parser tag, it would be
> great
> > if
> > > we could easily add a button or menu item for it.
> > >
> > > Thank you very much for any info.
> > > DanB
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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
> > ___
> > 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
>

[Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

2016-01-22 Thread Rob Lanphier 
Hi everyone,

Those with a keen eye will notice that I filed T124255
, which calls for renaming
#MediaWIki-RfCs in Phab to "#ArchCom-RfC".  This would be a boring Phab
administrivia email if it was simply that.

The reason I want the rename:  ArchCom is the mechanism we hope to ensure
we build and deploy increasingly excellent software on the Wikimedia
production cluster in a consensus-oriented manner.  MediaWiki is at the
center of this, but ArchCom's responsibility doesn't end with MediaWiki.

T124255  is an odd place to have
a more sweeping conversation about the scope of ArchCom, but it'll do for
now.  Feel free to comment there or on this mailing list.

Thanks
Rob
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

2016-01-22 Thread Rob Lanphier 
 On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Alex Monk  wrote:

> To clarify - are you saying this ([deploying increasingly excellent
> software on the Wikimedia production cluster in a consensus-oriented
> manner]) is the actual current scope of ArchCom, or are you advocating for
> a change in scope?


It's my attempt to clarify the scope, but you could argue it's a change.

Ultimately, WMF TechOps has correctly blocked a lot of software making it
to the Wikimedia cluster that hasn't been through the RFC process, even
though they themselves weren't entirely clear about the scope.  Wikimedia
Foundation leadership has an (unfortunately) long history of being unclear
about the scope.  I share the blame for this.  This is my attempt to
clarify.

Rob
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Last call on RFC: drop PHP 5.3/5.4 support

2016-01-22 Thread Rob Lanphier 
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Tim Starling  wrote:
> This is a last call for new arguments and facts related to the
> proposal to drop PHP 5.3 and PHP 5.4 support in MediaWiki core git master.
>
> If you have anything new to say about this issue, please comment on
> the Phabricator ticket:
>
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T118932
>
> The Architecture Committee plans on making a decision on this issue on
> the basis of the Phabricator comments in next week's committee meeting
> (January 27).

Clarifying this:  please make your comments in T118932 now; don't wait
for Wednesday's meeting.  Wednesday will be your opportunity to say
"hey, that commnet I wrote, did you read it?  did you understand it?
it's really important!".  If you're waiting until Wednesday to ambush
us with a stellar new argument that's going to change everyone's mind,
you are doing it wrong.  Make your case *now*.

Meeting URL:


We've dithered on this one long enough.  We really need to end the
uncertainty well before the 1.27 release.

Thanks
Rob

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

2016-01-22 Thread C. Scott Ananian 
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Rob Lanphier  wrote:

>  On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Alex Monk  wrote:
>
> > To clarify - are you saying this ([deploying increasingly excellent
> > software on the Wikimedia production cluster in a consensus-oriented
> > manner]) is the actual current scope of ArchCom, or are you advocating
> for
> > a change in scope?
>
>
> It's my attempt to clarify the scope, but you could argue it's a change.
>
> Ultimately, WMF TechOps has correctly blocked a lot of software making it
> to the Wikimedia cluster that hasn't been through the RFC process, even
> though they themselves weren't entirely clear about the scope.  Wikimedia
> Foundation leadership has an (unfortunately) long history of being unclear
> about the scope.  I share the blame for this.  This is my attempt to
> clarify.
>

Perhaps you could elaborate on the "WMF TechOps" aspect a bit, either here
in email or on the Phab ticket.  It seems that some of the tasks currently
tagged as "RfCs" are actually not ArchCom RfCs (they are
WikiData-related?).  From your description above, it seems there may also
be some not-quite-ArchCom RfCs related to what software gets deployed on
our cluster.

Perhaps we should try to come up with more fine-grained labels for RfCs,
rather than labelling them all "ArchCom RfCs"?   I think there was some
discussion at the dev summit about trying to associate proposals with the
dev summit "working groups", as a way of communicating a broad agenda for
each ArchCom meeting.  Finer-grained RfC labeling might be part and parcel
of this.

  --scott (who isn't opposed to the proposed relabeling in any way, just
thinking perhaps this is an opportunity for better classification)
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

2016-01-22 Thread Alex Monk 
To clarify - are you saying this is the actual current scope of ArchCom, or
are you advocating for a change in scope?

On 22 January 2016 at 22:03, Rob Lanphier  wrote:

> ArchCom is the mechanism we hope to ensure
> we build and deploy increasingly excellent software on the Wikimedia
> production cluster in a consensus-oriented manner.  MediaWiki is at the
> center of this, but ArchCom's responsibility doesn't end with MediaWiki.
>
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

2016-01-22 Thread Scott MacLeod 
Hi Rob,

"@Robla-WMF : Can you please clarify the first sentence "We now
MediaWiki-RfCs and RfC, which now greatly complicates being able to rename
"mediawiki-rfcs" " ... in this https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124255 ?
"

Cheers,
Scott




On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Rob Lanphier  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Those with a keen eye will notice that I filed T124255
> , which calls for renaming
> #MediaWIki-RfCs in Phab to "#ArchCom-RfC".  This would be a boring Phab
> administrivia email if it was simply that.
>
> The reason I want the rename:  ArchCom is the mechanism we hope to ensure
> we build and deploy increasingly excellent software on the Wikimedia
> production cluster in a consensus-oriented manner.  MediaWiki is at the
> center of this, but ArchCom's responsibility doesn't end with MediaWiki.
>
> T124255  is an odd place to
> have
> a more sweeping conversation about the scope of ArchCom, but it'll do for
> now.  Feel free to comment there or on this mailing list.
>
> Thanks
> Rob
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l




-- 

- Scott MacLeod - Founder & President
- 415 480 4577
- http://scottmacleod.com
- Please donate to tax-exempt 501 (c) (3)
- World University and School
- via PayPal, or credit card, here -
- http://worlduniversityandschool.org
- or send checks to
- PO Box 442, (86 Ridgecrest Road), Canyon, CA 94516
- World University and School - like Wikipedia with best STEM-centric
OpenCourseWare - incorporated as a nonprofit university and school in
California, and is a U.S. 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt educational organization.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Scope of ArchCom

2016-01-22 Thread Rob Lanphier 
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:58 PM, C. Scott Ananian 
wrote:
> Perhaps you could elaborate on the "WMF TechOps" aspect a bit, either here
> in email or on the Phab ticket.  It seems that some of the tasks currently
> tagged as "RfCs" are actually not ArchCom RfCs (they are
> WikiData-related?).  From your description above, it seems there may also
> be some not-quite-ArchCom RfCs related to what software gets deployed on
> our cluster.

My "WMF TechOps" term was a slightly inaccurate way of describing the "Ops"
column in this table:


A relevant part to quote: "The Wikimedia Foundation
 legally controls the
servers; ultimately the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
 is responsible for
determining who has *sysadmin* access, and how that responsibility is
exercised. However, this power is delegated to various Wikimedia Foundation
managers . On a
day-to-day basis, various system administrators with root or shell access
manage the server clusters."

> Perhaps we should try to come up with more fine-grained labels for RfCs,
> rather than labelling them all "ArchCom RfCs"?   I think there was some
> discussion at the dev summit about trying to associate proposals with the
> dev summit "working groups", as a way of communicating a broad agenda for
> each ArchCom meeting.  Finer-grained RfC labeling might be part and parcel
> of this.

I would like one board to monitor for what is actually about to be
approved.  Per T123606 , I would
*love* for working groups to assume a lot of the earlier drafting/workflow
aspects of things, and Phab labels for that would be great.  I think we
need to agree on the working groups we want (see T124504
) before we start on the
administrative detail of what tags we want.

Rob
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Modern module loading needing code review

2016-01-22 Thread Legoktm 
Hi,

On 01/21/2016 10:01 AM, Jon Robson wrote:
> As part of the work of the frontend standards group
> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/260071/ adds require and
> module.exports to MediaWiki ResourceLoader. This will make it easier
> to share code outside MediaWiki and with nodejs systems as well as
> discouraging the overloading of the mediawiki variable.
> 
> I'm looking for code review at the moment. If you are familiar with
> ResourceLoader's internals I'd appreciate your input.
> 
> See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T108655 for further background

I'll ask since we just discussed this in the last IRC meeting...why
wasn't/isn't this an RfC?

-- Legoktm

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l