Hi, (To answer the question first, yes SRF 1.9 requires SMW 1.9)
I expected that sooner or later someone would ask about the SMW 1.9 release status. Please let me try to iterate over the current status and the possible impact on a specific release date. As Jeroen noted in his earlier announcement, SMW 1.9 is a clean-up release which brings some minor features ([0]) but mainly focuses on re-factoring to provide unit tests that cover some basic quality metrics [1]. In short, we are not just there yet because: - Code coverage [2] only shows a 18% coverage (in comparison SMW 1.8.0.5 only had a ~1% coverage) which should be at least hit 25% before considering a release (which is easier said than done, for a longer explanation see the follow-up email) - Hooks are used as the main interface to communicate with the "MW world" and therefore need careful test coverage, some of the hooks have been converted [3] to be individually testable but some are still missing (alpha-2) - Moving from an arbitrary setup registration [4] to a [5] approach where objects are registered from top to bottom accompanied by appropriate unit tests (alpha-3) - Factbox [6] has been re-factored in order to be testable (alpha-3) - Some class naming issues (it is less an issue rather being a design quirk) (alpha-3) - SMW Lua framework, not sure what to do about it and where it should go (see comments [7]) ## SMW 1.9 alpha and SMW 1.9 alpha-2 While alpha software in general is being said not to to be used in production we see some encouraging statistics ([8], [9]) that despite its status alpha/alpha-2 have been already adopted (for those wikis that are monitored by wikiapiary). The difference between alpha and alpha-2 indicates a deployment progress towards a release (and the introduction of DIC[10], see follow-up email). It is planned to have another deployment stage (alpha-3 stage) to mark other "high" impact changes to track possible issues before a beta release can be announced. Again, a specific time can't be advertised because those of us who are actively involved do that on a voluntary basis but of course if you want to speed up the process, you are encouraged to submit a change set (with unit tests). If you want to help to push code coverage to hit at least the 25% mark, use [2] to find a class without coverage, select one of the 60 unit tests already deployed with SMW 1.9 as boilerplate (see also [11]) and try write a unit test. The reason why we are trying to have an improved code coverage is that when something changes in MW we are more likely to detect a possible impact and for other extensions developer that rely on SMW they can detect possible changes by running integration tests (it requires extension developers to write those tests that combine SMW and their functions) to avoid issues before a release. [0] <https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-SemanticMediaWiki/blob/master/RELEASE-NOTES-1.9> doesn't really reflect the current status as it lags behind but it has also the lowest priority in terms of updates [1] http://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Code_coverage_in_a_nutshell [2] <https://coveralls.io/r/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-SemanticMediaWiki> [3] <https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-SemanticMediaWiki/tree/master/includes/hooks> [4] <https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-SemanticMediaWiki/blob/master/includes/Setup.php#L49> [5] <https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/80365/> and <https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/78964/> hit the same nail but needs consolidation [6] <https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/61171/> [7] <https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/56393/> [8] <http://wikiapiary.com/wiki/Extension:Semantic_MediaWiki> [9] <http://bit.ly/16g1Z7d> [10] <https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-SemanticMediaWiki/tree/master/includes/dic> [11] <https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-SemanticMediaWiki/tree/master/tests/phpunit> PS: While not with a high priority, REL1_19 test coverage is still not running [12] and since SMW 1.9 ought to support MW 1.19 it should officially run the same unit tests. [12] <https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51746> Cheers On 9/10/13, Eric_ <kauftabl...@web.de> wrote: > Hola! > > Any news to this? > > I'm mainly interested in features in SRF 1.9 but I assume it requires SMW > 1.9!? > > > Best regards, > > Eric > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://wikimedia.7.x6.nabble.com/Delaying-SMW-1-9-tp5003651p5013049.html > Sent from the Semantic Mediawiki - Development mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more! > Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies > and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step > tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041391&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-devel mailing list > Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=51271111&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
