Template talk:Incompatible/LQT Archive 1

I'm not sure I like the idea of pledging to fix the extension. It seems like it could lead to cookie licking, especially if the person pledging doesn't actually have commit access. Someone pledges to fix it, doesn't, but now that the pledge is made someone else who could have fixed the extension doesn't. That's not a result that we want. Reach Out to the Truth 05:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. What if there's a sort of countdown until their pledge expires?  My feeling is that will still be better than what seems to occur now with folks altogether nervous to update another developer's extension.  My hope is this will provide a way to help ease folks concerns, avoid the "I'm sure someone else will do it" phenomena that seems to plague some extensions, and increasing transparency.  Here's an example of a pledge with the built-in reset warning.  --Varnent 05:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I should probably point out I'm "borrowing" this concept from Drupal - where I feel they've had a lot of success with it - especially in preparing for upcoming releases. Often times module (extensions) developers weren't aware their module wouldn't work with an upcoming release - this was a helpful way for beta testers to share that info and for developers to let folks know they were working on it - saving a lot of discussions and aimless searching on discussion pages.  This is designed to plug in future versions as well.  --Varnent 05:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)