Hoi,
I brought two arguments, you do not address either. The issue is introducing
GIT, there are production processes that will break. Not addressing this and
not proving that it can provide the goods is at issue. I suggest proving GIT
in an environment where our production will not get broken.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 22 March 2011 19:11, Ryan Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As to Toolserver, this environment and its functionality is deeply
> flawed.
> > As the tools are open source, there is no reason why relevant tools
> cannot
> > be brought into GIT and upgraded to a level where they are of production
> > quality. Either GIT is able to cope or its distributed character adds no
> > real value.
> >
> > The notion that it has to be MediaWiki core and or its extensions first
> is
> > absurd when you consider that it is what we use to run one of the biggest
> > websites of the world. We rely on the continued support for our
> production
> > process. The daily process provided by LocalisationUpdate is such a
> > production process. When the continuity of production processes is not a
> > prime priority, something is fundamentally wrong.
>
> You are misunderstanding. The thread isn't about toolserver, so you
> are muddying up a perfectly valid thread with something totally
> non-related.
>
> Yes, toolserver has a problem, and it should be addressed. It isn't a
> problem with the MediaWiki developer community though, it's a problem
> with the toolserver community, and they need to fix it. But again,
> let's focus on one issue at a time.
>
> - Ryan Lane
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
