Thank you folks! I guess I wasn't logged in when I first tried. It works fine now [0]. Anyhow, I am with Gergo and Jeroen on the issue of code hosting and I chose to use GitHub. I also have lots of extensions on WM's facilities and won't change that in the near future but I am switching to GitHub as I am maintain more and more also non-MW related packages there and I feel like it is less troublesome even though I have also worked on Gerrit for 19 months on a daily basis when working as part of the Wikidata team. Also, some of the biggest MW extensions such as "Semantic MediaWiki" and "Maps" seem to be hosted on GitHub already and I can not see how they would lack any support from our community in terms of contributions.
Cheers, Daniel [0]: https://packagist.org/packages/mediawiki/user-bitcoin-addresses On 22 July 2015 at 00:57, Bryan Davis <bd...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroended...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hey Bryan, > > > > What exactly justifies such an authoritarian "need to go though some > > permission process" setup? Exactly what problems are we currently seeing? > > I'm very sceptical about such an approach. Sure you can say things such > as > > that I'd be nice for other people to have access. The reality is that > most > > people don't care about most extensions and that a lot of them end up > being > > unmaintained and very low quality to begin with. Telling volunteers they > > should go follow a process they do not want to follow and that they > should > > use a code hosting service they do not want to use has its down sides. > This > > was also not done in the past. You did not need approval to create a > > "certified MediaWiki extension" or something like that. > > As of > https://github.com/composer/packagist/issues/163#issuecomment-99673878 > Packagist itself has created this restriction of vendor namespaces > actually indicating some level of ownership. A vendor is a supplier of > a good or service. Publishing something as mediawiki/* is explicitly > claiming affiliation with the MediaWiki open source project. As such > it seems not unreasonable to ensue that projects claiming to be > supplied by the MediaWiki community actually are indeed serviceable by > that community. Note that there is no form of restriction for > publishing a package that provides a MediaWiki extension or other > related functionality under another namespace. > > I would certainly welcome an RfC discussion of the current policy and > a potential replacement. From my point of view, use of the MediaWiki > brand implies endorsement by the MediaWiki community and thus should > only be easily available to projects that are able to be contributed > to and managed by that community. If for example a serious security > flaw was found in a mediawiki/foo package on Packagist the community > should be empowered to fix it. > > Bryan > -- > Bryan Davis Wikimedia Foundation <bd...@wikimedia.org> > [[m:User:BDavis_(WMF)]] Sr Software Engineer Boise, ID USA > irc: bd808 v:415.839.6885 x6855 > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
