https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189
--- Comment #77 from Aryeh Gregor <[email protected]> 2009-05-05 14:03:34 UTC --- There has been no politicking here with regards to ABC vs. LilyPond. Tim Starling is the most likely to enable either, and he's said (comment #40) that he believes LilyPond to be musically much superior. But by the admission of its own documentation, LilyPond might use an arbitrarily large amount of resources if maliciously fed pathological input. That is the reason it is off the table, period. It's a DoS vector. If anyone (Wikipedia users, LilyPond developers, whatever) want to try getting that fixed, they're welcome to. Claiming that people have ulterior motives for going with ABC is not only offensive, but patently absurd. The concerns have been stated very clearly. Music support is not a top-priority feature and might not receive as much initiative from Wikimedia people as music lovers would like, but that's life. There are thousands of open bugs and most don't end up with much developer attention. It is not the duty of MediaWiki developers to try getting any *specific* bug or feature request fixed, even the paid ones. If *you* want to see a particular bug fixed, *you* have to try to persuade one or more suitable developers to give it more attention. Although I can't even read sheet music, I've been periodically pestering Tim about enabling ABC, since some users seem to want it a lot (even if it's markedly inferior to LilyPond, which everyone seems to agree on). He says maybe he'll enable it after the 1.15 release and the next scap. Even if ABC is enabled, LilyPond could still be considered at some later date if it's demonstrated to not be a security concern. In that case, ABC could be phased out from Wikimedia content in favor of LilyPond, and ABC eventually disabled. (In reply to comment #76) > I think Dscho said what is most rational _to do_: Since #49 there was no > comments from the Wikimedia developers about this bug and they had not > discussed the issues with the LilyPond developers. I am a MediaWiki developer and have commented repeatedly since comment 49. I don't have the ability to enable extensions on Wikipedia, I only have commit access, but I believe I understand the requirements adequately, and if I don't, I can ask people who do. If anyone requires clarifications on what is needed for LilyPond to be usable by Wikimedia, they can ask. So far, no one has. I have plenty of other things to do and don't care about this bug immensely, so I'm not going to be willing to take the initiative to dig up and pester LilyPond devs about getting this fixed. If LilyPond devs feel the same way, then I guess ABC will just be used forever. > But, it is needed to have a clear description of the problem in order to have > a > solution. In other words, even if someone could work on LilyPond to correct > the > problems, they would need to know what the problems are! In this sense, we > need > the participation of Wikimedia team... I believe I've given a clear description of the problem in comment 67. If there's anything unclear about it, please ask. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
