Talk:Developers/Maintainers/Archive 1

Idea: add a third column for unreliable domain experts who cannot commit to maintainership. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * +1 --Waldir (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

ops table
The "Operations/systems administration" section needs to be synced with Wikimedia services. In fact, probably that page should redirect to this section so that information is always kept up to date at one place. --Waldir (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I've just done so. Most of the info is actually at wikitech:Category:Services (or nagios, if that was usable). --Nemo 16:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhhh... some of the entries were different. Did you make sure the copy we have here is the most complete and up to date? --Waldir (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't. That page mixed up two very different purposes, listing services and listing maintainers. As I said, the "true" list is at wikitech. --Nemo 12:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted your soft redirect. The purpose of Wikimedia services is to list services and their associated maintainers (if any). I'm fine with a (soft) redirect to Developers/Maintainers, iff you merge the content first. But you seem to have made no effort to do so, so entries such as Mingle and status.wikimedia.org got completely dropped. Not cool. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do as you wish, I don't care. That page will go rot and I'll soft-redirect it again in a few years, I'm not in a hurry. --Nemo 09:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as you rot along with it. ;-) I think it can be soft-redirected now. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've merged all that needed to be merged, mostly in the first diff. I'm planning to improve the  (which currently doesn't do anything) shortly. Let me know if I've missed something. guillom 11:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done by editing the table and the row template. guillom 12:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, thanks! I made one slight tweak in this edit. Otherwise, looks great to me. I wonder if the www portals could/should be listed here as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

subject matter experts who don't have +2 in core or the relevant extension

 *  sumanah: Btw, the Developers/Maintainers page seems to indirectly imply I'm an Interface maintainer despite not having +2 in core.
 * DanielFriesen: hey there! How would you like it reflected that you're someone who's good to consult but not a +2 haver?
 *  Heh... dunno
 *  sumanah: I suppose you could instead modify the line that says "To be listed as a maintainer a person has to have +2 access to the relevant Git repository and regularly respond to bug reports and changeset review requests."
 *  Or maybe add a third column.
 *  sumanah: That said it's a minor point... it seems like without even reading that page there are already contributors who are mistaking me for someone that can +2 their css commits.

To address at some point. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Out of date
We're currently missing a number of extensions, as Hoo just pointed out to me. We should find a way to easily re-sync this page (even a basic set comparison of extensions in Bugzilla and extensions listed on this page would be nice...). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What about non-WMF extensions and whatnot?
Quite a few things that aren't deployed on WMF servers are in gerrit, and it would be useful to have somewhere to go to find potential reviewers for those too. Should this address that? -— Isarra ༆ 00:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)