Which extensions could use more active attention? Let me know so I can
suggest this work to developers with interest & spare time. For
example, if volunteers are writing good patches that await review, maybe
we could encourage them to take over triaging bugs and maintain the
extensions more actively.
This is especially worth investigating for extensions that WMF deploys.
The more developers who learn an extension's codebase and take a hand
in maintaining it, the more quickly we can respond to possible problems.
I looked at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Extensions_used_on_Wikimedia [0]
and ran a Bugzilla search for open bugs on those extensions with
severity Normal or higher and priority Normal or higher.
http://ur1.ca/85xoz
Numbers below are from a couple weeks ago when I was drafting this mail,
but wouldn't be that different right now. Patches awaiting review:
ParserFunctions: 8
Math (texvc): 5
Cite: 5
AntiSpoof: 4
CentralAuth: 4
ConfirmEdit: 3
DismissableSiteNotice: 3
DumpHTML: 3
ProofreadPage: 3
CheckUser: 2
DynamicPageList2: 2
Lucene Search: 2
MobileFrontend: 2
SyntaxHighlight (GeSHi): 2
WikiEditor: 2
CategoryTree: 1
CharInsert: 1
EasyTimeline: 1
ImageMap: 1
Nuke: 1
OggHandler: 1
Poem: 1
ReaderFeedback: 1
UploadWizard: 1
Vector: 1
As of today there are 137 patches awaiting review for MediaWiki, and 60
patches awaiting review for extensions that WMF deploys.
[0] If someone else wants to figure out & align the various lists of
extensions deployed on WMF servers, the sources to use are
https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Main_Wikimedia_extensions ,
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/translatewiki/MediaWiki/Wik…
and
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Extensions_used_on_Wikimedia .
--
Sumana Harihareswara
Volunteer Development Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation