On Jan 16, 2015 9:21 AM, "Mark A. Hershberger" <m...@nichework.com> wrote: > > Ori Livneh <o...@wikimedia.org> writes: > > > The model I do think we should consider is Python 3. Python 3 did not > > jettison the Python 2 codebase. The intent behind the major version change > > was to open up a parallel development track in which it was permissible to > > break backward-compatibility in the name of making a substantial > > contribution to the coherence, elegance and utility of the language. > > I like the idea, but this makes it sound like we have some commitment > in the current co-debase to backwards compatibility. > > Currently, though, just as Robla points out that there is no clear > vision for the future, there is no clear mandate to support interfaces, > or what we usually call "backwards compatibility". > > So, yes, let's have a parallel MW 2.0 development track that will allow > developers to try out new things. But let that be accompanied with a MW > 1.0 track so that makes stability a priority. > > Now, the question is: what will Wikipedia run: MW 2.0 or MW 1.0? And, > if they focus on MW 2.0 (My sense is that is where the WMF devs will > want to be), then how do those of us with more conservative clients keep > MW 1.0 viable? > > Mark. > > -- > Mark A. Hershberger > NicheWork LLC > 717-271-1084 > >
This seems a solution in search of a problem. Does anyone actually have anything they want that is difficult to do currently and requires a mass compat break? Proposing to rewrite mediawiki because we can without even a notion of what we would want to do differently seems silly. --bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
