Hey,
During this years Wikimania I discussed the possibility of bundling
extensions more closely together with their base software with some fine
folks. I think it might be helpful to do this for SMW to some extend, so
would like to get your feedback.
My proposal is putting SMW and some of it's e
On 16 July 2012 21:24, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
> My proposal is putting SMW and some of it's extensions into a single git
> repository, and releasing them together.
Are you suggesting moving all SMW extensions to single repo (on WMF or
elsewhere) in addition to the current repos or also deprecating
Hey,
> Are you suggesting moving all SMW extensions to single repo (on WMF or
> elsewhere) in addition to the current repos or also deprecating the
> current repositories?
Moving all of the code into the current SMW repo and deprecating the others.
Cheers
--
Jeroen De Dauw
http://www.bn2vs.com
Hi Jeroen,
I don't think this is a good idea as you've described it. It would
certainly increase convenience, for all the reasons you mention. But on the
other hand, it would automatically set up a "two-class system" for
extensions: those that are grouped in with Semantic MediaWiki, and those
that
I think, before bundeling any extensions, there could be something like a
compatibility check. Wordpress for example has something like this, and even
allows to install plugins directly. So I think something like a compatibility
and dependency check would be better. But on mediawiki side, not es
Hi,
as I understand Jeroen, this is mainly a proposal about code
maintenance, not about deployment. Somebody who pulls the whole repo
will have the code for all extensions that are in there, but that does
not mean that they are all enabled (or even mutually compatible).
It seems to me that a j
Hi,
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. The only extension that I think can be included without any
controversy or complications is Semantic Result Formats. Any other
exten
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
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
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
My two technical questions remained open, and I have a third one:
(1) Would it even be possible to deploy many MW extensions that are in
different top-level directories in one git repo without pulling
subdirectories from the repo individually? If not, then the deployment
of git-code on sites wo
Hi,
I am sceptical about this. I do not see the advantage of having SMW
extensions maintained outside the normal MW git repo. It creates yet
another system to be aware of. On top of it, by installing from this
repo the user would not be done, i.e. they would still need to
manually get e.g. Validat
Hey,
> Would it even be possible to deploy many MW extensions that are in
different top-level directories in one git repo without pulling
subdirectories from the repo individually?
Yes, you can get the whole repo in one go. So it'd be easier to get the
extensions, although this really is just a v
On 19/07/12 11:22, Stephan Gambke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am sceptical about this. I do not see the advantage of having SMW
> extensions maintained outside the normal MW git repo. It creates yet
> another system to be aware of. On top of it, by installing from this
> repo the user would not be done, i.e
Hi.
On 19 July 2012 14:53, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> Jeroen did not suggest to move outside of MW git. The idea is just to
> combine several closely related repos into one.
Yes, but would it be a _normal_ repo?
How would the workflow be? Now you clone MW, then you get into the
extensions dir and
Hey,
> One case I had lately was a function that just disappeared from the
> codebase (SMW_QueryPrinter.php::getValidatorParameters).
Looks like that's my fault - that function is now obsolete. I can add it
back in if that really helps you. Probably removed it figuring no one was
using it anyway.
Hi,
On 19 July 2012 22:20, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
>> One case I had lately was a function that just disappeared from the
>> codebase (SMW_QueryPrinter.php::getValidatorParameters).
>
> Looks like that's my fault - that function is now obsolete. I can add it
> back in if that really helps you. Prob
Hey,
> Having to sift through all the extensions downloded with the package and
now cluttering my extensions dir
You could always just get only those extensions you want from the release
distribution. And when using git, I'm sure there is a way to only have some
dirs visible to you :)
> would it
18 matches
Mail list logo
