Topic on Project talk:WikiProject Extensions

I'm constantly being templated with {{extension code in wiki}} but, on looking at https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/02/15/wikimedia-engineering-moving-from-subversion-to-git/ I'm told "Right now, we’re asking people to stop creating any new extensions in Subversion right now, and to watch the wikitech-l mailing list for more updates."

Which is it? Go dump a pile of extensions into SVN, seemingly with no regard to either their usefulness or any duplication of functionality already in other extensions already there, or lay off on that idea entirely because WMF is in process of replacing SVN with git?

This is a very confusing mixed message.

Spamming templates onto large numbers of individual-extension pages telling authors to apply for SVN commit access might make no sense at all if SVN is about to go away or be replaced... so, perhaps lay off with the templates until this is done?

I can appreciate your concern. However, I hope that we do continue to place them, even during the migration.

Perhaps if for no other reason than the template is as a warning for system administrators as much as a request for extension developers. Also, you can now request access to git for your extensions, so there is a new solution. Documentation, including that template, is in the process of being updated. There are a couple weeks of overlapping messages during this transition while everything is being finalized. I'll admit, that's annoying.

Once the git migration is completed, there will be an effort to move any functional extensions that have code in wiki onto the git repository. It's better to house the code on the WMF tool designed to house code - if for no other reason than it makes it easier for folks to flag issues with it and tweak it. Whereas many folks are not comfortable doing that with code placed within wiki, and there's generally no awareness of the status of those extensions as again, they're outside the code repository. A part of assessing if an extension is "functional" will include a compatibility check and an effort to look into function overlap, etc. Some of this is being done now as a part of the same drive that's placing more of these templates. Extensions that are incompatible, not being maintained and do not show signs of active use (comments in user talk about its incompatibility, etc.) are being archived.

Regarding holding off, I'm hoping we don't hold off. We'd like to have all of these extensions tagged in time for some possible hackathons and other activities that could help address some of this workload. Again, I recognize during that time it's an inconvenience. However, it's volunteers reviewing hundreds of extension pages - so that effort alone won't be completed until after the git migration is completed.

Essentially, why wait until tomorrow what we can do and prepare for today?

Edit one or more extension: pages, get a {{extension code in wiki}} saying <small>''The developer is encouraged and invited to get [[commit access]] to MediaWiki's [[Subversion|code repository]] to address this.''</small>.

Then what? I applied for SVN on the 14th, only to then see posted the next day https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/02/15/wikimedia-engineering-moving-from-subversion-to-git/ with "Right now, we’re asking people to stop creating any new extensions in Subversion right now, and to watch the wikitech-l mailing list for more updates."

Looks like a waste of time.

I do not intend to re-apply for git.

Much of this on-wiki code is only here because it's something kludged together to keep an author's own wiki site up and running. In some cases (a namespace editor, for instance) the intent was only to use an extension as a stop-gap measure while waiting for core to add some needed functionality (whatever happened to the wikidata-style namespace editor, already pretty much working, which was supposed to be core in MW 1.07+ anyway?)

In most cases, the question of whether these code fragments are of any potential use to anyone else is merely an afterthought.

I can't comment on whether my own experience is typical of extension authors; some extensions were written by people who have vanished years ago and nothing will be done, others were written by WMF staff for deployment on WMF projects and are therefore core code in all but name. The rest of us land somewhere between those two extremes - we don't care whether some piece of code kludged together to keep one non-WMF project up and running is reused elsewhere - the code isn't trade secret, but at the same time the effort spent applying and re-applying for access to one or another code repository just to publish it on the off-chance someone wanted a peek at it is a pointless overhead cost with no benefit in return.

If you must keep templating {{extension code in wiki}}, could you please remove the bit directing authors to subversion in light of the request "asking people to stop creating any new extensions in Subversion right now"?

Yes, all templates referring to SVN are being updated in the next couple of weeks.

Any reason for not removing the one line saying <small>''The developer is encouraged and invited to get [[commit access]] to MediaWiki's [[Subversion|code repository]] to address this.''</small> from {{extension code in wiki}} now, or even two weeks ago (when the original request to stop checking new extensions into Subversion was made)?

Changing this now (to remove SVN) does not preclude updating it again once 'git' is fully operational. It's just one line in one template.

Also, why the sudden huge concern that an extension might have code on wiki while there is seemingly no concern about extensions where the code is hosted off-site somewhere. The latter should be the greater problem as we have no means to recover if the externally-hosted site goes away entirely (something which happens routinely, if authors are pointing these to their personal sites)?

I'm a little swamped with other things - but when ahead and updated that template since you feel so strongly about it.  :/ Remember anyone can help by updating templates - we're all volunteers.  :)

You're welcome to start an effort to combat the code that is hosted off-site. Some folks I spoke with felt that was a fair solution for people that didn't want others editing their code, but wanted it to be available on MW.org. One could certainly argue that's a problem worth addressing, but it's not the one this template or drive is intended to address... I think a template to highlight the dangers of those extensions is appropriate. If you create one, we can add it to the extension templates list. You can also request it in the project and I'll try to get to it in the next couple of weeks.