Hey,
> But if essentially any SMW-based extension can get added, then I don't
see what the big benefit is.
> ...
> have symbolic links to the right version/tag/branch of each extension
> ...
> But perhaps I'm missing something in this whole thing.
I think so - if you go back to my initial list of
Hi Jeroen,
Ah, I was confused - your specific listing of extensions at the beginning
made me think that this was going to be a curated list of extensions, in
the manner of the Semantic Bundle. But if essentially any SMW-based
extension can get added, then I don't see what the big benefit is. It se
On 18/07/12 11:56, CNIT wrote:
> On 18.07.2012 13:07, Daniel Schuba wrote:
>> I'm wondering why the most important thing about this is not
>> mentioned. Which versions of PHP are used/installed on major linux
>> distributions. For example I have an ubuntu server with 10.04 LTS with
>> PHP 5.3. So w
Hey,
> as I understand Jeroen, this is mainly a proposal about code
> maintenance, not about deployment.
It's about both.
> I still think that this is a bad idea, due to the fact that it sets up a
> two-tier system of extensions, with somewhat arbitrary criteria over what
gets included
First of
Hey,
> If I were to decide, I'd stick till Christmas with 5.2, then would jump
right to 5.4 branch.
Please note that the discussion is about the _minimum_ version of PHP
needed to run SMW. If you can use 5.4 to run it, then that should work just
fine.
Personally I think it's still to early to re
On 18.07.2012 13:07, Daniel Schuba wrote:
I'm wondering why the most important thing about this is not
mentioned. Which versions of PHP are used/installed on major linux
distributions. For example I have an ubuntu server with 10.04 LTS with
PHP 5.3. So when PHP 5.3 is requiered that's okay for
On 17.07.2012 17:14, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
Hey,
> Shouldn't we hold these requirements in the extensions? [1]
These docs are for MediaWiki 1.19. 1.20 does require 5.3 or later.
Furthermore, I send a mail to the lists about using PHP 5.3 in the
next version of SMW, and no one complained. And s
Hi Markus, Jeroen,
I found a disturbance in SMW 1.8 and I don't really have time to look
at right now but when I tested the scenario below dates were
wrongfully converted.
## Test batch
{{#subobject:a1|demo=date|has date=01.01.1977|has value=12}}
{{#subobject:a2|demo=date|has date=02.01.1977|has
