On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <bjor...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jon Robson <jdlrob...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> So I want to know: >> * What are the blockers for doing this? >> * Are there any use cases / killer features in LiquidThreads that are >> not in Flow that need to be ported over? >> > > Flow doesn't support actual threaded discussions beyond a very limited > depth,[1] meaning that a real threaded discussion is likely to turn into a > morass of comments without clear indication of what is replying to what > unless people actively work around it.[2] Since converted LQT threads are > likely to lack the quoting necessary to work around this misfeature, > they're particularly liable to wind up unreadable if they're at all complex. > > Also, bug 57512 comment 31 could use a reply.[3] > I personally find the topic history page[4] to be horrendous, both ugly and nearly unusable. The whole-board history page[5] is somewhat better, but (1) nothing lines up like it does on normal history pages, and (2) I can't see everything that changed since I last looked. Yes, I'm probably atypical in that I like reading wikitext diffs for discussion pages. But I'd find something like [[en:WP:VPT]] difficult to actually follow in any other way. Even if it were at the thread level rather than the board level, that would be something. LQT seems to have you beat there, Flow. [4]: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sandbox&workflow=rw4ue4fg80q3gz3b&action=history [5]: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sandbox&action=history _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
