On 6/6/14, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <bjor...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jon Robson <jdlrob...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> So I want to know: >> * What are the blockers for doing this? >> * Are there any use cases / killer features in LiquidThreads that are >> not in Flow that need to be ported over? >> > > Flow doesn't support actual threaded discussions beyond a very limited > depth,[1] meaning that a real threaded discussion is likely to turn into a > morass of comments without clear indication of what is replying to what > unless people actively work around it.[2] Since converted LQT threads are > likely to lack the quoting necessary to work around this misfeature, > they're particularly liable to wind up unreadable if they're at all complex. > > Also, bug 57512 comment 31 could use a reply.[3] > > > [1]: Although this is a matter of configuration rather than something > hard-coded, I doubt the configuration is going to be changed. > [2]: I won't go into more detail here about this or about why pings (as > Flow encourages to work around the misfeature) aren't sufficient. > [3]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57512#c31 > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Personally I have yet to see a discussion system that surpasses (or really even comes close) to standard talk page ":::comment here. ~~~~" syntax. Honestly it would make me happy if we just used that in general. The exception being pages with large influxes of newbies, like Project:Support_desk. In those pages LQT really does make a difference to ensure things are well organized. --bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
