Sorry Erik, I missed your post in the discussion above and just saw it as I
was working my way back through the stack of emails. Anyway, I hope this is
on your radar.

Pine


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sounds like there are some issues here that may need untangling. I'm
> pinging Erik. He's probably aware of this but I would like to hear his POV.
> Mobile is high on WMF's priority stack and it's high on my list of personal
> interests.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> What you're saying, Trevor, makes sense, and I agree that we shouldn't
>> have
>> a "code purgatory". I won't presume to speak for Jon, but I imagine his
>> somewhat provocative presentation of Mantle is due, at least in part, to
>> frustration. About a year ago, the mobile web team was gung-ho to start
>> moving parts of MobileFrontend into core. The first step in this process
>> was to convert MobileFrontend into a skin, which we did. The second part
>> was to move our template system into core, since most of the other parts
>> depend on it and there's no MVC framework in core, especially not for
>> client-side use. We put together an RfC on this,[1] and pushed it at the
>> architecture summit. No consensus was reached on moving forward, and
>> instead we reluctantly agreed to hold off on doing anything until Gabriel
>> had a chance to implement an alternate solution for comparison. We
>> recently
>> tested Gabriel's implementation,[2] but are not totally satisfied with it
>> or convinced that it is the best way forward (although Gabriel is still in
>> the process of improving it).
>>
>> After having lost most of our momentum, we recently pushed to prioritize
>> core infrastructure work during mobile web's planning for the upcoming
>> fiscal year, and even talked about breaking off part of the mobile web
>> team
>> into a "skin and infrastructure team". This too was basically shut down in
>> favor of continuing work on mobile features. Then after suffering both of
>> these setbacks we learn that there is yet another nascent proposal for a
>> new core UI skinning infrastructure and even though it doesn't have a
>> single line of code yet, you have been granted 80% of your time to work on
>> it (rather than working on either of other two systems that have already
>> been started). While it's great that you have invited the mobile web team
>> to participate in this effort, I hope you can understand how this entire
>> experience has been extremely demoralizing and frustrating for the mobile
>> web team. Personally, I can't blame Jon for losing patience in the process
>> and (purposefully or not) causing a stink about it.
>>
>> That said, I hope we (the mobile web team) can put aside some of our
>> feelings of being snubbed and outmaneuvered and work (yet again) towards
>> reaching some sort of consensus on moving forward.
>>
>> 1.
>>
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/HTML_templating_library
>> 2.
>>
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/HTML_templating_library/Knockoff_-_Tassembly/Mobile_spike
>>
>>
>> Ryan Kaldari
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Trevor Parscal <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Indeed, this thread is a bit silly.
>> >
>> > If someone wants to make an extension that provides a feature, and
>> someone
>> > else wants to use it, there's nothing wrong with that. But why would
>> such a
>> > thing need proposing?
>> >
>> > If the point of Mantle is only to provide a way to bring templates to
>> the
>> > client, then sell it that way. Look at the code in Mantle, and the way
>> it's
>> > been pitched online and in person. It includes other things too, and has
>> > been repeatedly advertised as a general place where any code that is
>> > experimental can be put, while also simultaneously pushing for others to
>> > depend on it.
>> >
>> > I have no problem with adding useful functionality to ResourceLoader,
>> even
>> > doing so in an extension. I have a problem with trying to develop, what
>> Jon
>> > himself call, a code "purgatory".
>> >
>> > I'm happy to talk in person as well.
>> >
>> > - Trevor
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > This whole thread seems a bit silly to me. We put stuff that should
>> be in
>> > > core into extensions all the time (for lots of different reasons). For
>> > > example: WikiEditor, VisualEditor, Echo, MobileFrontend, JsonConfig,
>> etc.
>> > > So why is Mantle such a bad idea? There's no consensus on implementing
>> > > templating in core yet, so it seems like a pretty cool idea to have an
>> > > extension that other extensions can utilize for that technology in the
>> > > meantime (instead of writing separate code for the same purpose). The
>> > > JsonConfig and EventLogging extensions are basically the same idea,
>> > right?
>> > > I think if Jon had named the extension "TemplateDooDad" (and hadn't
>> > > emphasized the fact that he was avoiding putting the code into core),
>> it
>> > > wouldn't have raised anyone's hackles.
>> > >
>> > > Ryan Kaldari
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jon Robson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Trevor,
>> > > > That email you quote was about totally different code and a proposal
>> > > > to put it into Mantle and is off topic for this discussion.\T
>> > > > Trevor, please grab me in real life, so we can quell this
>> > > > misunderstanding asap, I feel for whatever reason I am not
>> effectively
>> > > > communicating to you and possibly others and I would like to work
>> out
>> > > > why and avoid future misunderstandings. I had hoped to grab you
>> > > > yesterday but I didn't get time because of the Flow release, hence
>> my
>> > > > lack of reply to that thread.
>> > > >
>> > > > The main problem Mantle currently solves is:
>> > > > "... we both had a need to pass templates from the server to the
>> > > > client via ResourceLoader. Mobile has been doing this for a year,
>> and
>> > > > rather than another big project like Flow reinventing the wheel, we
>> > > > decided it was time to share code."
>> > > >
>> > > > To put it this way:
>> > > > * it would be irresponsible to put code for 2 templating languages
>> > > > (Hogan, Handlebars) into core
>> > > > * it would be irresponsible to put code to serve templates with no
>> > > > templating library whilst the RFC about templating is still
>> > > > unresolved.
>> > > > * it would be irresponsible for two teams to write exactly the same
>> > > > code to serve templates to the client in 2 different extensions.
>> > > >
>> > > > Your own team member Timo was strongly against me putting this code
>> in
>> > > > core in current form and I agreed with him.
>> > > >
>> > > > "We are paid, as professional software engineers, to write code that
>> > > > provides complete solutions, is stable, is clear how to use, doesn't
>> > > > break anything and meets MediaWiki's coding conventions"
>> > > >
>> > > > This particularly offends me by the way. This is a no brainer and of
>> > > > course any code Flow or the mobile team is writing will meet coding
>> > > > standards and be stable. I'm not going to post bad code to Wikimedia
>> > > > servers just as I'm not going to post non-generic non-standardised
>> > > > code to core.
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > 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
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Reply via email to