https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69445
--- Comment #22 from MZMcBride <b...@mzmcbride.com> --- (In reply to C. Scott Ananian from comment #8) > I think that extensions and gadgets are probably the "right" way to make > sitewide changes. Extensions already have a code review/deployment process, > although we can certainly work to make that smoother/easier. Perhaps enwiki > could have an 'Extension:enwiki', for example, which could contain any code > which would otherwise live in common.js. I was thinking a bit more generic, but yeah, this might be a good idea to pursue. My thought was that you might have Extension:WikimediaScripts, which follows the pattern of E:WikimediaMaintenance and E:WikimediaMessages and E:WikimediaEvents. Inside the WikimediaScripts extension, you'd have modules that could then be loaded on a per-wiki basis. > common.js is just a weird special case that doesn't need to exist. I addressed this line of reasoning in comment 19, last paragraph. For now, there's a definite need for these pages to exist. That may not be true in the future, but it is true today. -- 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
