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]:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Jeroen De Dauw
<jeroendedauw(a)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 <bd808(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l