Talk:Requests for comment/Tarball maintenance

About this board

Dantman (talkcontribs)

If we're going to have LTS versions, could we please tweak the definition and backporting policy for them.

Right now we ONLY backport security changes to old releases. All features and backend api changes are restricted to the latest version.

Periodically we make api changes like getLang() -> getLanguage(), $wgUser -> $this->getUser(), $sk->link() -> Linker::link(), and so on. While most of these are small we have some api changes were it's absolutely critical for uses of the old method to start using the new method for us to be able to move on. However when it comes to extensions often a lot of the major extensions will not start using the new apis for quite a long time. It almost takes the whole time until we completely obsolete a version of MW before we can convince some extensions to start using new non-deprecated code. And if we start supporting old versions of MediaWiki for years I can see trying to get extensions to use the latest apis in their latest versions becoming hell.

The general idea of a LTS version is two points, right?

  • Keep out new features and changes that need to be adjusted to.
  • Keep out major changes to the underlying api so that everything you build doesn't suddenly need to be updated.

Basically instead of only security fixes I'd like to also backport backwards-compatible api changes to old versions. Things like having both non-deprecated getLang and getLanguage when we deprecate getLang and move to getLanguage.

Doing this will keep things built against LTS versions working. Keep new front-end features out of LTS. And allow extensions to use the most up-to-date MW apis while still working in LTS versions.

MarkAHershberger (talkcontribs)

Thanks for spelling all this out. These are all good ideas. I was thinking only of security fixes, but if someone is willing to do LTS support in the way you're saying, that makes a lot of sense.

Reply to "Long Term Support?"
Cneubauer (talkcontribs)

Hi Mark, curious why you want to bump the version number to 2.0 instead of leaving it at 1.20? Won't that confuse people?

Bawolff (talkcontribs)

Note, people get confused by the 1.19 is greater than 1.9 thing all the time. Personally I think this will result in less confusion

Cneubauer (talkcontribs)

I've heard folks say that but never actually encountered anyone getting confused by it. Maybe it's because I'm dealing with system administrators and other folks who install software on a regular basis (that would be the target audience of the tarballs anyway right?). Releasing MediaWiki 2.0 which is actually MediaWiki version 1.20 on the other hand seems pretty confusing...

MarkAHershberger (talkcontribs)

I'm not sure why 2.0 would be anything but 2.0. There would be no 1.20.

Reply to "Version Numbers"
There are no older topics