Re: [Wikitech-l] Refactoring MonoBook
Yeah, that is basically what we decided to do. And hey, it's bitrotting in production, at least! -I On 20/03/18 10:51, Derk-Jan Hartman wrote: So.. what if you shove the old monobooktemplate into the Modern skin, rename it and let it use that. Then it becomes self contained, you don't have your problem anymore, and Modern can slowly further bitrot ;) Its not ideal, but I would consider it acceptable. DJ On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Isarra Yos wrote: I have just been informed that Modern works by extending MonoBookTemplate. This is a problem. -I On 18/03/18 00:56, Isarra Yos wrote: I'm refactoring MonoBook, starting with MonoBookTemplate. The current change gets rid of the entire immediate print/html soup approach and instead assembles a giant string and prints that in one statement at the end. See: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/420154/ and https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/420161/ Pending reviews and assurances that I have indeed not totally broken everything, we'll probably be merging this in the next week or so. If anyone would like to point out particular reasons why this is a terrible idea, please do so now. Future plans include putting that ridiculous getPortlet into core BaseTemplate, making a less dumb BaseTemplate::getFooter without breaking anything already using it so MonoBook can lose its silly replication thereof, organising all the files in MonoBook better (putting them in resources, includes, etc according to standard skin practices), and making MonoBook responsive. There are also some problems that need addressing down the road: that I'm not sure how safe it is for caching and the like to just go moving images/css files around willy-nilly, that there are no 'standard' skin practices as far as anyone can tell, and that some people seem to think MonoBook is bad and not worth this. But MonoBook is not bad. It is a delightful skin. We should preserve it, and not just in formaldehyde. -I ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Refactoring MonoBook
So.. what if you shove the old monobooktemplate into the Modern skin, rename it and let it use that. Then it becomes self contained, you don't have your problem anymore, and Modern can slowly further bitrot ;) Its not ideal, but I would consider it acceptable. DJ On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Isarra Yos wrote: > I have just been informed that Modern works by extending MonoBookTemplate. > This is a problem. > > -I > > > On 18/03/18 00:56, Isarra Yos wrote: >> >> I'm refactoring MonoBook, starting with MonoBookTemplate. The current >> change gets rid of the entire immediate print/html soup approach and instead >> assembles a giant string and prints that in one statement at the end. See: >> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/420154/ and >> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/420161/ >> >> Pending reviews and assurances that I have indeed not totally broken >> everything, we'll probably be merging this in the next week or so. If anyone >> would like to point out particular reasons why this is a terrible idea, >> please do so now. >> >> Future plans include putting that ridiculous getPortlet into core >> BaseTemplate, making a less dumb BaseTemplate::getFooter without breaking >> anything already using it so MonoBook can lose its silly replication >> thereof, organising all the files in MonoBook better (putting them in >> resources, includes, etc according to standard skin practices), and making >> MonoBook responsive. >> >> There are also some problems that need addressing down the road: that I'm >> not sure how safe it is for caching and the like to just go moving >> images/css files around willy-nilly, that there are no 'standard' skin >> practices as far as anyone can tell, and that some people seem to think >> MonoBook is bad and not worth this. But MonoBook is not bad. It is a >> delightful skin. We should preserve it, and not just in formaldehyde. >> >> -I > > > > > ___ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Refactoring MonoBook
On 18/03/18 03:09, K. Peachey wrote: Just make it MonoBookV5? *runs*, or more realistically V2 then progressively get rid of the orginal MonoBook? The problem with splitting things up like that is then you need to deal with transitions from a v1 to a v2, which make everyone's lives more difficult, and especially create more work for and confuse reusers. As long as we can maintain a relatively smooth transition within the original, sticking to that is much more ideal - which is why, while I've gone and totally refactored MonoBookTemplate, I've also endeavoured to ensure the output remains functionally the same, and that all hooks and whatnot also continue to be supported, as dumb as several of them are. (Right now we're still trying to verify it really IS the same, though, so more eyes on that would be appreciated.) The only other blocker I know of at this point is the other skins that straight-up extend MonoBookTemplate, a practice that made rather more sense back when this was all part of core, but as there only appear to be two of them, it should be pretty straight forward to simply change that behaviour now. (Which I've already gone ahead and done for Modern; Cavendish has apparently also had a task for doing the same for some time, and so shouldn't be far behind.) -I ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Refactoring MonoBook
Long live MonoBook! I am very happy that someone takes care of it, thank you! ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Refactoring MonoBook
On 18 March 2018 at 10:56, Isarra Yos wrote: > > There are also some problems that need addressing down the road: that I'm > not sure how safe it is for caching and the like to just go moving > images/css files around willy-nilly, that there are no 'standard' skin > practices as far as anyone can tell, and that some people seem to think > MonoBook is bad and not worth this. But MonoBook is not bad. It is a > delightful skin. We should preserve it, and not just in formaldehyde. Just make it MonoBookV5? *runs*, or more realistically V2 then progressively get rid of the orginal MonoBook? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Refactoring MonoBook
I have just been informed that Modern works by extending MonoBookTemplate. This is a problem. -I On 18/03/18 00:56, Isarra Yos wrote: I'm refactoring MonoBook, starting with MonoBookTemplate. The current change gets rid of the entire immediate print/html soup approach and instead assembles a giant string and prints that in one statement at the end. See: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/420154/ and https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/420161/ Pending reviews and assurances that I have indeed not totally broken everything, we'll probably be merging this in the next week or so. If anyone would like to point out particular reasons why this is a terrible idea, please do so now. Future plans include putting that ridiculous getPortlet into core BaseTemplate, making a less dumb BaseTemplate::getFooter without breaking anything already using it so MonoBook can lose its silly replication thereof, organising all the files in MonoBook better (putting them in resources, includes, etc according to standard skin practices), and making MonoBook responsive. There are also some problems that need addressing down the road: that I'm not sure how safe it is for caching and the like to just go moving images/css files around willy-nilly, that there are no 'standard' skin practices as far as anyone can tell, and that some people seem to think MonoBook is bad and not worth this. But MonoBook is not bad. It is a delightful skin. We should preserve it, and not just in formaldehyde. -I ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Refactoring MonoBook
I'm refactoring MonoBook, starting with MonoBookTemplate. The current change gets rid of the entire immediate print/html soup approach and instead assembles a giant string and prints that in one statement at the end. See: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/420154/ and https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/420161/ Pending reviews and assurances that I have indeed not totally broken everything, we'll probably be merging this in the next week or so. If anyone would like to point out particular reasons why this is a terrible idea, please do so now. Future plans include putting that ridiculous getPortlet into core BaseTemplate, making a less dumb BaseTemplate::getFooter without breaking anything already using it so MonoBook can lose its silly replication thereof, organising all the files in MonoBook better (putting them in resources, includes, etc according to standard skin practices), and making MonoBook responsive. There are also some problems that need addressing down the road: that I'm not sure how safe it is for caching and the like to just go moving images/css files around willy-nilly, that there are no 'standard' skin practices as far as anyone can tell, and that some people seem to think MonoBook is bad and not worth this. But MonoBook is not bad. It is a delightful skin. We should preserve it, and not just in formaldehyde. -I ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
