On 2015-11-05, Ryan Lane <rlan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is this simply to support hosted providers? npm is one of the worst package > managers around. This really seems like a case where thin docker images and > docker-compose really shines. It's easy to handle from the packer side, > it's incredibly simple from the user side, and it doesn't require > reinventing the world to distribute things.
I got heavily involved in to node world recently and I fully share your opinion about npm and npm@3 takes the disaster to the next level. Are we using some native npm modules in our stack? *That* is hard to support. > If this is the kind of stuff we're doing to support hosted providers, it > seems it's really time to stop supporting hosted providers. It's $5/month > to have a proper VM on digital ocean. There's even cheaper solutions > around. Hosted providers at this point aren't cheaper. At best they're > slightly easier to use, but MediaWiki is seriously handicapping itself to > support this use-case. I feel very strongly there is a need for a quick setup for people who have their LAMP stack already working and feel familiar with that environment. The problem is that a full-stack MediaWiki is no longer a LAMP application. Those people aren't going away any soon and joining the coolest game in town. I have already written scripts to keep code, vendor and core skins in sync from git. I am beginning to write even more scripts to quickly deploy/destroy MW instances. (My platform does not do Docker, btw.). Maybe the right strategic move will be to implement MediaWiki phase four in the server-side JavaScript. Then the npm way is probably the only way forward. Saper _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
