https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39610
--- Comment #5 from Tim Starling <tstarl...@wikimedia.org> 2012-09-06 03:54:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Designating e.g. mediawiki.org as the repo for both gadgets and Scribunto > modules could IMO help it to develop further into a "community of code" > supporting the Wikimedia projects and other MediaWiki users. But it's possible > that I'm overlooking some benefits of the decentralized approach. Yes, I think there should be a central repository for modules. My preference is for explicitly specifying that a module from the central repository is desired, using colon-separated syntax in #invoke, instead of implicitly searching a central repository when a module is missing on the local wiki. When a module is migrated from the local wiki to the global repository, explicit global module invocation would encourage a progressive approach to migration, with backwards compatibility maintained. Implicit global module invocation would encourage local wikis to delete their superseded local modules instead of keeping them around for a longer period of deprecation and migration. I'm not completely sold on the idea that the central repository should be a wiki. Using a Git repository would have a lot of advantages. For one thing, it wouldn't imply a dependency on interwiki template transclusion, so it would make the software development task simpler. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
