https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40124
--- Comment #24 from Bartosz Dziewoński <[email protected]> 2012-12-03 22:13:19 UTC --- (In reply to comment #21) > You want to avoid implementing anything that is officially reviewed and > supported (documented, reliable, maintained, not wiki/language local > implement). My solution is documented in two languages (the ones I speak well enough to do this, Polish and English). I believe it is pretty reliable (it kept working after the options API was "fixed" thanks to the safeguards I built in). It is maintained (but, I admit, currently only by me). I was going to suggest my implementation on other wikis as well, but it was broken before I got to it. It isn't "officially reviewed", yes. I don't believe it would add much value, to be honest; it would just enforce some of MW's coding conventions which I intentionally didn't use. > So, you do it all yourself. Spend a lot of valuable time > implementing something locally on your home wiki using undocumented features > until it works. To be honest, I implemented it in one day, then spent an evening doing fixups, and then another evening when I changed some features after pl.wikipedia community discussion. I saved a lot of time by not waiting weeks for somebody to finally review it; I shared it with a few fellow pl.wikipedian coders, and they liked it. Yes, it wasn't scrutinized as thoroughly as WMF-approved scripts, and it probablt isn't tip-top perfect. But it's good enough, it works, and I have yet to hear a bug report about it. (I used it in one gadget after initial testing, then in a second, more widely-used one after no issues were found.) > Then when it breaks (surprise!), you report the failure and > need us to in(directly) fix your feature. I could probably implement seamlessly saving the data in a user .js file in less time than it took me to write out all these elaborate messages here, as the code I wrote is pretty robust and would support it with little structural changes. I just wanted to solve things the right way before I go offroad again. Nor do I need anyone to "fix" it; I am able to implement a fix to the options API myself, but I refrained from doing it until the discussion was over (or at least stabilizing). I will, of course, need someone to approve my patch. (Honestly, that patch would amount to removing one line of code containing a certain "continue" statement, as far as I can see right now, unless there's more issues lurking in the preferences.) > Anyhow.. The community contribution workflow has been improved a lot. The > perception that we (you, me, Wikimedians) like to share and complain about is > getting dated and will only come to your own disadvantage. I recommend you > take > this opportunity to make something cool with support of the foundation > (instead > of on your own in a user script, which is a lot harder to maintain and > developer). I'm sure you'll like working with us and the community will really > appreciate you for it. I'd be happy to make sure you get the support you need > from others or myself. As I said before, when you want to implement things and see them live in your lifetime, code review the way WMF / MediaWiki is practising it simply gets in the way. It would take months to get someone to review such a large chunk of new code, and years until it got deployed. (I don't think I'm exaggerating.) I appreciate constructive reviews, and opportunities to improve my skills; I don't appreciate having to wait weeks and months for them. Sorry, but that's the situation as I see it. > Either way, though this feature is really useful and accepted as something we > support (bug 21897), it hasn't been done yet because of lack of maintenance of > Gadgets extension (it was implemented in 2007 and been abandoned). > > There are currently 2 major phases I want to get Gadgets through: > * Gadgets 2.0: Implement global gadget repository and > ResourceLoader/localisation support. > * Gadgets 3.0: User repositories (replacing core "user scripts" with "user > gadgets"). > > Somewhere in there is also room for "gadget options" (which Salvatore started > with). However I haven't been able to get back at that because other projects > have a higher priority right now. Gadgets 2.0 doesn't seem much more real the MediaWiki 2.0 to me. -- 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 [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
