On 27 September 2013 10:36, Mark A. Hershberger <m...@nichework.com> wrote:
> On 09/27/2013 01:06 PM, Siebrand Mazeland wrote: > > Would it be possible to commit to a "will be > > reviewed within" time for "bugzilla issues with a merged patch in Gerrit > > that are marked as resolved fixed with the 'Backport_stable?' flag set'? > > Yes. We'll be reviewing them every two weeks and responding to all > outstanding requests at that time. I've updated the policy with this > information. > > > Secondly: Does this process only apply to MediaWiki core, or also to > > MediaWiki extensions that are tracked in Bugzilla. > > We could use it for bundled extensions, but the process is currently > intended only for the tarball distribution. > > Still, if an extension is being used widely (and here, the data gathered > from installation pings would be invaluable), then it would make sense > to apply this process to other extensions tracked in bugzilla. > What about for core changes needed by extensions that are widely-desired (I'm thinking specifically of VisualEditor here, but no doubt there are others), where our dependencies on MW 1.22 alpha (currently 1.22/wmf11<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VisualEditor>) are almost all back-portable. We'd be interested in helping have VE run for MW other than bleeding edge for third party use - presumably by us (or some volunteer, hint hint) supplying patches for the relevant branch and flagging them to you two? However, given the policy as written, these would only be accepted for LTS versions of MW (so, 1.19 and… eventually 1.22?) which is a bit unfortunate (or would the patches be accepted as and when a security release went out, but wouldn't trigger a release themselves?). J. -- James D. Forrester Product Manager, VisualEditor Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. jforres...@wikimedia.org | @jdforrester _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
