https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14281
--- Comment #46 from MZMcBride <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #34) >> 2. If it is just a small task, what is standing in the way of it being done? > > Comment 10, I imagine. Tim Starling is not some random guy. He's a MediaWiki > architect (I guess that's the term we're using these days; cf. > <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk: > %2B2&oldid=597500#Revocation>). > So when he marked this bug as "wontfix", even though it's been re-opened, > there's likely a lot of hesitance to insert a feature that was explicitly > marked rejected by a senior developer (and MediaWiki architect). Tim gave his > reasoning in comment 10. This is wrong. My apologies. Tim didn't mark this bug as resolved/wontfix. That was a mis-statement on my part. Tim commented (comment 10), a few hours later someone else marked the bug as resolved/worksforme, then the bug was changed to resolved/wontfix a few months later (cf. <https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_activity.cgi?id=14281>). I stand by the belief that it was Tim's comment that led to this bug being marked resolved, but the bug's history makes it clear it wasn't Tim who marked it resolved. A dependency of this bug (<https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/53189/1>) seems to be on its way to approval (Tim wrote "The intent and design is fine by me."). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
