Mantle - coding sharing between Flow and MobileFrontend

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Mantle - coding sharing between Flow and MobileFrontend

Jon Robson-2
== The problem ==
MediaWiki has a huge UI standardisation problem. We use different
libraries, different css styles and class names, some of which do the
same thing.

Recently the teams working on Flow and MobileFrontend noticed they
were doing various things in a similar fashion. We were both using
client side templates, we had various bits of JavaScript that were
similar, and many styles that we could potentially be sharing.

== The motivation ==
The Flow team has recently decided to use Handlebars [1] templating
language and the mobile team has been heavily using Hogan [2]
templating language for over a year now. Both of us are actively
involved in the templating RFC [3] however neither of us want to be
blocked by that RFC. Despite these different templating language
choices and the knowledge that we will one day need to standardise on
just one templating language, we both had a need to pass templates
from the server to the client via ResourceLoader. Mobile has been
doing this for a year, and rather than another big project like Flow
reinventing the wheel, we decided it was time to share code.

We attempted to put the code straight into core, but Krinkle quite
rightly pointed out that a templating RL language solution without a
templating language packaged with it would be confusing and not useful
to the majority of developers outside the Flow/mobile bubble. So
instead, Mantle [4] was born.

== Mantle ==
The purpose of Mantle is to wrap additional infrastructure code that
core is missing, and iterate on that code quickly to get it to a state
where it is as generic as possible.

As a result of Flow and mobile's collaboration the template code from
mobile supports multiple languages which is great for 3rd party users
who might want to write code using a different template language) and
it now has eyes from both the mobile and Flow teams on it, so it
should become stronger now it has 2 use cases. We're hoping to add
support for Knockoff which Gabriel has been working on in the near
future to experiment with that.

We are waiting on a standard template language before upstreaming this
code to core and going through another round of review amongst our
developer peers.

Currently Flow depends on Mantle, and there is a patch in gerrit to
move MobileFrontend to using it [5]

== The future ==
Mantle is only a short term measure. The hope is that all the code
that goes here will eventually go into core. We hold the code here to
exactly the same high standards that we hold core to, we are just able
to more freely experiment and iterate. I hope Mantle doesn't exist in
a year and instead we have a healthy frontend architecture that Mantle
has helped grow.

In the meantime however mobile and Flow will use it to at least
standardise on a few things between our codebases with the goal to
make Flow as mobile friendly as possible. We don't want to ship two
bits of code, one from MobileFrontend and one from Flow, to a mobile
Flow page that do exactly the same thing.

I also hope overtime it could be used to share other aspects of
missing frontend code architecture across extensions. For example, it
could potentially be used to rapidly develop new components for
MediaWiki UI  [6] that are not quite stable enough to be placed in
core and made available to all.

If you're interested in sharing and collaborating on frontend code
with Flow and mobile feel, or client side templates in general free to
grab me off list and on irc (@jdlrobson). We don't do enough of this
:-)

Jon

[1] http://handlebarsjs.com/
[2] http://twitter.github.io/hogan.js/
[3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/HTML_templating_library
[4] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Mantle
[5] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/129335
[6] https://git.wikimedia.org/tree/mediawiki%2Fcore.git/49f86a90520e6618c1e3044e3f29d5edeefc0657/resources%2Fsrc%2Fmediawiki.ui

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mantle - coding sharing between Flow and MobileFrontend

Trevor Parscal-2
Jon, I know you mean well, and that you are passionate about solving this
problem, but I do not believe this is the right approach. I've communicated
that in another thread with a smaller group, and you did not respond to me.
Now you are changing key details in the proposal, but the extension code is
the same, which makes me feel a bit confused.

In a post to a smaller internal group yesterday, you said:

We hold core to higher standards. We question everything

> that goes in there thus it will take you 2 days-1 month to do
> something compared to 1 day in your own extension, so naturally people
> will do it in their own extension.
> When we put stuff into core we ask things such as:
> 1) Is it a complete solution?
> 2) Is it stable?
> 3) Is it clear how to use it (for example if core doesn't use a bit of
> mediawiki ui it begs the question to an outside observer why it is
> there)
> 4) Does it break anything?
> 5) Does it meet mediawiki's coding conventions?


I challenged this approach, suggesting that all code we, as paid software
engineering professionals, write should live up to these standards.

Today you say:

We hold the code [in Mantle] to exactly the same high standards that we
> hold core to, we are just able to more freely experiment and iterate.


So what is going on? You want to base two burgeoning projects on code that
is free to change frequently so that you can experiment and iterate, but
may or may not be doing so in a way that lives up to the standards of
MediaWiki core.

You also say:

I also hope overtime it could be used to share other aspects of
> missing frontend code architecture across extensions.
>

But also say:

Mantle is only a short term measure. The hope is that all the code
> that goes here will eventually go into core.


So, again, what is going on? Is this meant to be a short term measure for
sharing a few specific features while they not yet appropriate for core, or
is this a long term measure that code should be moved through as needed?

*The point I made in the other thread bears repeating.*

<snip>

> If the motivation of having Mantle is to move more quickly, I am firmly
against it.

We are paid, as professional software engineers, to write code that
provides complete solutions, is stable, is clear how to use, doesn't break
anything and meets MediaWiki's coding conventions. We all fall short of
this frequently, but should consider that a failure and learn from our
mistakes.

What is being suggested is that such irresponsible programming practices be
permitted within a special code "purgatory" which has no standards and
which everything depends on which means it will inevitably be deployed
everywhere.

We shouldn't be coming up with ways to bypass, even if only temporarily,
the standards that have been fought so hard to establish within MediaWiki.
We should instead be looking for ways to make it easier to code to these
standards; like increasing the use of continuous integration, facilitating
mentorship and improving review tools.


We should be looking to raise our standards, both in code quality and code
reusability. The standards we establish shouldn't be treated as a limiting
factor, but rather a call to action. More of our code should be general
purpose libraries that can be shared outside of MediaWiki.
Good practices are discovered when half-measure solutions fall apart under
the strain of a sufficiently complex problem. We have no short of
sufficiently complex problems, and an abundance of wisdom that's been
poured into our coding conventions and standards for acceptance. I'm hoping
we can not loose sight of that every time we run low on patience.
</snip>

- Trevor



On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Jon Robson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> == The problem ==
> MediaWiki has a huge UI standardisation problem. We use different
> libraries, different css styles and class names, some of which do the
> same thing.
>
> Recently the teams working on Flow and MobileFrontend noticed they
> were doing various things in a similar fashion. We were both using
> client side templates, we had various bits of JavaScript that were
> similar, and many styles that we could potentially be sharing.
>
> == The motivation ==
> The Flow team has recently decided to use Handlebars [1] templating
> language and the mobile team has been heavily using Hogan [2]
> templating language for over a year now. Both of us are actively
> involved in the templating RFC [3] however neither of us want to be
> blocked by that RFC. Despite these different templating language
> choices and the knowledge that we will one day need to standardise on
> just one templating language, we both had a need to pass templates
> from the server to the client via ResourceLoader. Mobile has been
> doing this for a year, and rather than another big project like Flow
> reinventing the wheel, we decided it was time to share code.
>
> We attempted to put the code straight into core, but Krinkle quite
> rightly pointed out that a templating RL language solution without a
> templating language packaged with it would be confusing and not useful
> to the majority of developers outside the Flow/mobile bubble. So
> instead, Mantle [4] was born.
>
> == Mantle ==
> The purpose of Mantle is to wrap additional infrastructure code that
> core is missing, and iterate on that code quickly to get it to a state
> where it is as generic as possible.
>
> As a result of Flow and mobile's collaboration the template code from
> mobile supports multiple languages which is great for 3rd party users
> who might want to write code using a different template language) and
> it now has eyes from both the mobile and Flow teams on it, so it
> should become stronger now it has 2 use cases. We're hoping to add
> support for Knockoff which Gabriel has been working on in the near
> future to experiment with that.
>
> We are waiting on a standard template language before upstreaming this
> code to core and going through another round of review amongst our
> developer peers.
>
> Currently Flow depends on Mantle, and there is a patch in gerrit to
> move MobileFrontend to using it [5]
>
> == The future ==
> Mantle is only a short term measure. The hope is that all the code
> that goes here will eventually go into core. We hold the code here to
> exactly the same high standards that we hold core to, we are just able
> to more freely experiment and iterate. I hope Mantle doesn't exist in
> a year and instead we have a healthy frontend architecture that Mantle
> has helped grow.
>
> In the meantime however mobile and Flow will use it to at least
> standardise on a few things between our codebases with the goal to
> make Flow as mobile friendly as possible. We don't want to ship two
> bits of code, one from MobileFrontend and one from Flow, to a mobile
> Flow page that do exactly the same thing.
>
> I also hope overtime it could be used to share other aspects of
> missing frontend code architecture across extensions. For example, it
> could potentially be used to rapidly develop new components for
> MediaWiki UI  [6] that are not quite stable enough to be placed in
> core and made available to all.
>
> If you're interested in sharing and collaborating on frontend code
> with Flow and mobile feel, or client side templates in general free to
> grab me off list and on irc (@jdlrobson). We don't do enough of this
> :-)
>
> Jon
>
> [1] http://handlebarsjs.com/
> [2] http://twitter.github.io/hogan.js/
> [3]
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/HTML_templating_library
> [4] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Mantle
> [5] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/129335
> [6]
> https://git.wikimedia.org/tree/mediawiki%2Fcore.git/49f86a90520e6618c1e3044e3f29d5edeefc0657/resources%2Fsrc%2Fmediawiki.ui
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mantle - coding sharing between Flow and MobileFrontend

Jon Robson
Trevor,
That email you quote was about totally different code and a proposal
to put it into Mantle and is off topic for this discussion.\T
Trevor, please grab me in real life, so we can quell this
misunderstanding asap, I feel for whatever reason I am not effectively
communicating to you and possibly others and I would like to work out
why and avoid future misunderstandings. I had hoped to grab you
yesterday but I didn't get time because of the Flow release, hence my
lack of reply to that thread.

The main problem Mantle currently solves is:
"... we both had a need to pass templates from the server to the
client via ResourceLoader. Mobile has been doing this for a year, and
rather than another big project like Flow reinventing the wheel, we
decided it was time to share code."

To put it this way:
* it would be irresponsible to put code for 2 templating languages
(Hogan, Handlebars) into core
* it would be irresponsible to put code to serve templates with no
templating library whilst the RFC about templating is still
unresolved.
* it would be irresponsible for two teams to write exactly the same
code to serve templates to the client in 2 different extensions.

Your own team member Timo was strongly against me putting this code in
core in current form and I agreed with him.

"We are paid, as professional software engineers, to write code that
provides complete solutions, is stable, is clear how to use, doesn't
break anything and meets MediaWiki's coding conventions"

This particularly offends me by the way. This is a no brainer and of
course any code Flow or the mobile team is writing will meet coding
standards and be stable. I'm not going to post bad code to Wikimedia
servers just as I'm not going to post non-generic non-standardised
code to core.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mantle - coding sharing between Flow and MobileFrontend

Ryan Kaldari-2
This whole thread seems a bit silly to me. We put stuff that should be in
core into extensions all the time (for lots of different reasons). For
example: WikiEditor, VisualEditor, Echo, MobileFrontend, JsonConfig, etc.
So why is Mantle such a bad idea? There's no consensus on implementing
templating in core yet, so it seems like a pretty cool idea to have an
extension that other extensions can utilize for that technology in the
meantime (instead of writing separate code for the same purpose). The
JsonConfig and EventLogging extensions are basically the same idea, right?
I think if Jon had named the extension "TemplateDooDad" (and hadn't
emphasized the fact that he was avoiding putting the code into core), it
wouldn't have raised anyone's hackles.

Ryan Kaldari


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jon Robson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Trevor,
> That email you quote was about totally different code and a proposal
> to put it into Mantle and is off topic for this discussion.\T
> Trevor, please grab me in real life, so we can quell this
> misunderstanding asap, I feel for whatever reason I am not effectively
> communicating to you and possibly others and I would like to work out
> why and avoid future misunderstandings. I had hoped to grab you
> yesterday but I didn't get time because of the Flow release, hence my
> lack of reply to that thread.
>
> The main problem Mantle currently solves is:
> "... we both had a need to pass templates from the server to the
> client via ResourceLoader. Mobile has been doing this for a year, and
> rather than another big project like Flow reinventing the wheel, we
> decided it was time to share code."
>
> To put it this way:
> * it would be irresponsible to put code for 2 templating languages
> (Hogan, Handlebars) into core
> * it would be irresponsible to put code to serve templates with no
> templating library whilst the RFC about templating is still
> unresolved.
> * it would be irresponsible for two teams to write exactly the same
> code to serve templates to the client in 2 different extensions.
>
> Your own team member Timo was strongly against me putting this code in
> core in current form and I agreed with him.
>
> "We are paid, as professional software engineers, to write code that
> provides complete solutions, is stable, is clear how to use, doesn't
> break anything and meets MediaWiki's coding conventions"
>
> This particularly offends me by the way. This is a no brainer and of
> course any code Flow or the mobile team is writing will meet coding
> standards and be stable. I'm not going to post bad code to Wikimedia
> servers just as I'm not going to post non-generic non-standardised
> code to core.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mantle - coding sharing between Flow and MobileFrontend

Trevor Parscal-2
Indeed, this thread is a bit silly.

If someone wants to make an extension that provides a feature, and someone
else wants to use it, there's nothing wrong with that. But why would such a
thing need proposing?

If the point of Mantle is only to provide a way to bring templates to the
client, then sell it that way. Look at the code in Mantle, and the way it's
been pitched online and in person. It includes other things too, and has
been repeatedly advertised as a general place where any code that is
experimental can be put, while also simultaneously pushing for others to
depend on it.

I have no problem with adding useful functionality to ResourceLoader, even
doing so in an extension. I have a problem with trying to develop, what Jon
himself call, a code "purgatory".

I'm happy to talk in person as well.

- Trevor


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> This whole thread seems a bit silly to me. We put stuff that should be in
> core into extensions all the time (for lots of different reasons). For
> example: WikiEditor, VisualEditor, Echo, MobileFrontend, JsonConfig, etc.
> So why is Mantle such a bad idea? There's no consensus on implementing
> templating in core yet, so it seems like a pretty cool idea to have an
> extension that other extensions can utilize for that technology in the
> meantime (instead of writing separate code for the same purpose). The
> JsonConfig and EventLogging extensions are basically the same idea, right?
> I think if Jon had named the extension "TemplateDooDad" (and hadn't
> emphasized the fact that he was avoiding putting the code into core), it
> wouldn't have raised anyone's hackles.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jon Robson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Trevor,
> > That email you quote was about totally different code and a proposal
> > to put it into Mantle and is off topic for this discussion.\T
> > Trevor, please grab me in real life, so we can quell this
> > misunderstanding asap, I feel for whatever reason I am not effectively
> > communicating to you and possibly others and I would like to work out
> > why and avoid future misunderstandings. I had hoped to grab you
> > yesterday but I didn't get time because of the Flow release, hence my
> > lack of reply to that thread.
> >
> > The main problem Mantle currently solves is:
> > "... we both had a need to pass templates from the server to the
> > client via ResourceLoader. Mobile has been doing this for a year, and
> > rather than another big project like Flow reinventing the wheel, we
> > decided it was time to share code."
> >
> > To put it this way:
> > * it would be irresponsible to put code for 2 templating languages
> > (Hogan, Handlebars) into core
> > * it would be irresponsible to put code to serve templates with no
> > templating library whilst the RFC about templating is still
> > unresolved.
> > * it would be irresponsible for two teams to write exactly the same
> > code to serve templates to the client in 2 different extensions.
> >
> > Your own team member Timo was strongly against me putting this code in
> > core in current form and I agreed with him.
> >
> > "We are paid, as professional software engineers, to write code that
> > provides complete solutions, is stable, is clear how to use, doesn't
> > break anything and meets MediaWiki's coding conventions"
> >
> > This particularly offends me by the way. This is a no brainer and of
> > course any code Flow or the mobile team is writing will meet coding
> > standards and be stable. I'm not going to post bad code to Wikimedia
> > servers just as I'm not going to post non-generic non-standardised
> > code to core.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mantle - coding sharing between Flow and MobileFrontend

Legoktm
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
On 7/3/14, 11:23 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> This whole thread seems a bit silly to me. We put stuff that should be in
> core into extensions all the time (for lots of different reasons). For
> example: WikiEditor, VisualEditor, Echo, MobileFrontend, JsonConfig, etc.

I'd say that most of those are mistakes, and should have been in core to
begin with. WikiEditor should be in core, Echo (once cleaned up and lots
of bugs fixed) should be in core, MobileFrontend should definitely be in
core (though, now we're separating skins from core, so maybe not). I
haven't looked at JsonConfig, but I think at the architecture summit
people were fine with having it in core?

VisualEditor is a different beast, and can't be in core due to its
dependency upon Parsoid. Once Parsoid replaces the PHP parser, I see no
reason it can't be in core too.

-- Legoktm

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mantle - coding sharing between Flow and MobileFrontend

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Jon Robson-2
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Jon Robson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> == The future ==
> Mantle is only a short term measure. The hope is that all the code
> that goes here will eventually go into core. We hold the code here to
> exactly the same high standards that we hold core to, we are just able
> to more freely experiment and iterate. I hope Mantle doesn't exist in
> a year and instead we have a healthy frontend architecture that Mantle
> has helped grow.

Like Kaldari, I think it's perfectly fine to have this experimental
approach served by a separate extension until an implementation
strategy for core has been agreed upon. However, I would recommend
pursuing a shorter term resolution so we actually ensure that we work
together on a single codebase, rather than diverging further. Can we
shoot, _aspirationally_, for settling on a standard template/widget
approach in core within the next quarter, and definitely within the
next two quarters? I.e. dis-Mantle sooner rather than later?

Thanks, Jon, for posting the details of this approach publicly. I've
asked Tomasz to facilitate ongoing conversation about this internally,
as well.

Erik

--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mantle - coding sharing between Flow and MobileFrontend

Ryan Kaldari-2
In reply to this post by Trevor Parscal-2
What you're saying, Trevor, makes sense, and I agree that we shouldn't have
a "code purgatory". I won't presume to speak for Jon, but I imagine his
somewhat provocative presentation of Mantle is due, at least in part, to
frustration. About a year ago, the mobile web team was gung-ho to start
moving parts of MobileFrontend into core. The first step in this process
was to convert MobileFrontend into a skin, which we did. The second part
was to move our template system into core, since most of the other parts
depend on it and there's no MVC framework in core, especially not for
client-side use. We put together an RfC on this,[1] and pushed it at the
architecture summit. No consensus was reached on moving forward, and
instead we reluctantly agreed to hold off on doing anything until Gabriel
had a chance to implement an alternate solution for comparison. We recently
tested Gabriel's implementation,[2] but are not totally satisfied with it
or convinced that it is the best way forward (although Gabriel is still in
the process of improving it).

After having lost most of our momentum, we recently pushed to prioritize
core infrastructure work during mobile web's planning for the upcoming
fiscal year, and even talked about breaking off part of the mobile web team
into a "skin and infrastructure team". This too was basically shut down in
favor of continuing work on mobile features. Then after suffering both of
these setbacks we learn that there is yet another nascent proposal for a
new core UI skinning infrastructure and even though it doesn't have a
single line of code yet, you have been granted 80% of your time to work on
it (rather than working on either of other two systems that have already
been started). While it's great that you have invited the mobile web team
to participate in this effort, I hope you can understand how this entire
experience has been extremely demoralizing and frustrating for the mobile
web team. Personally, I can't blame Jon for losing patience in the process
and (purposefully or not) causing a stink about it.

That said, I hope we (the mobile web team) can put aside some of our
feelings of being snubbed and outmaneuvered and work (yet again) towards
reaching some sort of consensus on moving forward.

1.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/HTML_templating_library
2.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/HTML_templating_library/Knockoff_-_Tassembly/Mobile_spike


Ryan Kaldari


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Trevor Parscal <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Indeed, this thread is a bit silly.
>
> If someone wants to make an extension that provides a feature, and someone
> else wants to use it, there's nothing wrong with that. But why would such a
> thing need proposing?
>
> If the point of Mantle is only to provide a way to bring templates to the
> client, then sell it that way. Look at the code in Mantle, and the way it's
> been pitched online and in person. It includes other things too, and has
> been repeatedly advertised as a general place where any code that is
> experimental can be put, while also simultaneously pushing for others to
> depend on it.
>
> I have no problem with adding useful functionality to ResourceLoader, even
> doing so in an extension. I have a problem with trying to develop, what Jon
> himself call, a code "purgatory".
>
> I'm happy to talk in person as well.
>
> - Trevor
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > This whole thread seems a bit silly to me. We put stuff that should be in
> > core into extensions all the time (for lots of different reasons). For
> > example: WikiEditor, VisualEditor, Echo, MobileFrontend, JsonConfig, etc.
> > So why is Mantle such a bad idea? There's no consensus on implementing
> > templating in core yet, so it seems like a pretty cool idea to have an
> > extension that other extensions can utilize for that technology in the
> > meantime (instead of writing separate code for the same purpose). The
> > JsonConfig and EventLogging extensions are basically the same idea,
> right?
> > I think if Jon had named the extension "TemplateDooDad" (and hadn't
> > emphasized the fact that he was avoiding putting the code into core), it
> > wouldn't have raised anyone's hackles.
> >
> > Ryan Kaldari
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jon Robson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Trevor,
> > > That email you quote was about totally different code and a proposal
> > > to put it into Mantle and is off topic for this discussion.\T
> > > Trevor, please grab me in real life, so we can quell this
> > > misunderstanding asap, I feel for whatever reason I am not effectively
> > > communicating to you and possibly others and I would like to work out
> > > why and avoid future misunderstandings. I had hoped to grab you
> > > yesterday but I didn't get time because of the Flow release, hence my
> > > lack of reply to that thread.
> > >
> > > The main problem Mantle currently solves is:
> > > "... we both had a need to pass templates from the server to the
> > > client via ResourceLoader. Mobile has been doing this for a year, and
> > > rather than another big project like Flow reinventing the wheel, we
> > > decided it was time to share code."
> > >
> > > To put it this way:
> > > * it would be irresponsible to put code for 2 templating languages
> > > (Hogan, Handlebars) into core
> > > * it would be irresponsible to put code to serve templates with no
> > > templating library whilst the RFC about templating is still
> > > unresolved.
> > > * it would be irresponsible for two teams to write exactly the same
> > > code to serve templates to the client in 2 different extensions.
> > >
> > > Your own team member Timo was strongly against me putting this code in
> > > core in current form and I agreed with him.
> > >
> > > "We are paid, as professional software engineers, to write code that
> > > provides complete solutions, is stable, is clear how to use, doesn't
> > > break anything and meets MediaWiki's coding conventions"
> > >
> > > This particularly offends me by the way. This is a no brainer and of
> > > course any code Flow or the mobile team is writing will meet coding
> > > standards and be stable. I'm not going to post bad code to Wikimedia
> > > servers just as I'm not going to post non-generic non-standardised
> > > code to core.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mantle - coding sharing between Flow and MobileFrontend

Pine W
Sounds like there are some issues here that may need untangling. I'm
pinging Erik. He's probably aware of this but I would like to hear his POV.
Mobile is high on WMF's priority stack and it's high on my list of personal
interests.

Pine


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What you're saying, Trevor, makes sense, and I agree that we shouldn't have
> a "code purgatory". I won't presume to speak for Jon, but I imagine his
> somewhat provocative presentation of Mantle is due, at least in part, to
> frustration. About a year ago, the mobile web team was gung-ho to start
> moving parts of MobileFrontend into core. The first step in this process
> was to convert MobileFrontend into a skin, which we did. The second part
> was to move our template system into core, since most of the other parts
> depend on it and there's no MVC framework in core, especially not for
> client-side use. We put together an RfC on this,[1] and pushed it at the
> architecture summit. No consensus was reached on moving forward, and
> instead we reluctantly agreed to hold off on doing anything until Gabriel
> had a chance to implement an alternate solution for comparison. We recently
> tested Gabriel's implementation,[2] but are not totally satisfied with it
> or convinced that it is the best way forward (although Gabriel is still in
> the process of improving it).
>
> After having lost most of our momentum, we recently pushed to prioritize
> core infrastructure work during mobile web's planning for the upcoming
> fiscal year, and even talked about breaking off part of the mobile web team
> into a "skin and infrastructure team". This too was basically shut down in
> favor of continuing work on mobile features. Then after suffering both of
> these setbacks we learn that there is yet another nascent proposal for a
> new core UI skinning infrastructure and even though it doesn't have a
> single line of code yet, you have been granted 80% of your time to work on
> it (rather than working on either of other two systems that have already
> been started). While it's great that you have invited the mobile web team
> to participate in this effort, I hope you can understand how this entire
> experience has been extremely demoralizing and frustrating for the mobile
> web team. Personally, I can't blame Jon for losing patience in the process
> and (purposefully or not) causing a stink about it.
>
> That said, I hope we (the mobile web team) can put aside some of our
> feelings of being snubbed and outmaneuvered and work (yet again) towards
> reaching some sort of consensus on moving forward.
>
> 1.
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/HTML_templating_library
> 2.
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/HTML_templating_library/Knockoff_-_Tassembly/Mobile_spike
>
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Trevor Parscal <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Indeed, this thread is a bit silly.
> >
> > If someone wants to make an extension that provides a feature, and
> someone
> > else wants to use it, there's nothing wrong with that. But why would
> such a
> > thing need proposing?
> >
> > If the point of Mantle is only to provide a way to bring templates to the
> > client, then sell it that way. Look at the code in Mantle, and the way
> it's
> > been pitched online and in person. It includes other things too, and has
> > been repeatedly advertised as a general place where any code that is
> > experimental can be put, while also simultaneously pushing for others to
> > depend on it.
> >
> > I have no problem with adding useful functionality to ResourceLoader,
> even
> > doing so in an extension. I have a problem with trying to develop, what
> Jon
> > himself call, a code "purgatory".
> >
> > I'm happy to talk in person as well.
> >
> > - Trevor
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This whole thread seems a bit silly to me. We put stuff that should be
> in
> > > core into extensions all the time (for lots of different reasons). For
> > > example: WikiEditor, VisualEditor, Echo, MobileFrontend, JsonConfig,
> etc.
> > > So why is Mantle such a bad idea? There's no consensus on implementing
> > > templating in core yet, so it seems like a pretty cool idea to have an
> > > extension that other extensions can utilize for that technology in the
> > > meantime (instead of writing separate code for the same purpose). The
> > > JsonConfig and EventLogging extensions are basically the same idea,
> > right?
> > > I think if Jon had named the extension "TemplateDooDad" (and hadn't
> > > emphasized the fact that he was avoiding putting the code into core),
> it
> > > wouldn't have raised anyone's hackles.
> > >
> > > Ryan Kaldari
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jon Robson <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Trevor,
> > > > That email you quote was about totally different code and a proposal
> > > > to put it into Mantle and is off topic for this discussion.\T
> > > > Trevor, please grab me in real life, so we can quell this
> > > > misunderstanding asap, I feel for whatever reason I am not
> effectively
> > > > communicating to you and possibly others and I would like to work out
> > > > why and avoid future misunderstandings. I had hoped to grab you
> > > > yesterday but I didn't get time because of the Flow release, hence my
> > > > lack of reply to that thread.
> > > >
> > > > The main problem Mantle currently solves is:
> > > > "... we both had a need to pass templates from the server to the
> > > > client via ResourceLoader. Mobile has been doing this for a year, and
> > > > rather than another big project like Flow reinventing the wheel, we
> > > > decided it was time to share code."
> > > >
> > > > To put it this way:
> > > > * it would be irresponsible to put code for 2 templating languages
> > > > (Hogan, Handlebars) into core
> > > > * it would be irresponsible to put code to serve templates with no
> > > > templating library whilst the RFC about templating is still
> > > > unresolved.
> > > > * it would be irresponsible for two teams to write exactly the same
> > > > code to serve templates to the client in 2 different extensions.
> > > >
> > > > Your own team member Timo was strongly against me putting this code
> in
> > > > core in current form and I agreed with him.
> > > >
> > > > "We are paid, as professional software engineers, to write code that
> > > > provides complete solutions, is stable, is clear how to use, doesn't
> > > > break anything and meets MediaWiki's coding conventions"
> > > >
> > > > This particularly offends me by the way. This is a no brainer and of
> > > > course any code Flow or the mobile team is writing will meet coding
> > > > standards and be stable. I'm not going to post bad code to Wikimedia
> > > > servers just as I'm not going to post non-generic non-standardised
> > > > code to core.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mantle - coding sharing between Flow and MobileFrontend

Pine W
Sorry Erik, I missed your post in the discussion above and just saw it as I
was working my way back through the stack of emails. Anyway, I hope this is
on your radar.

Pine


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sounds like there are some issues here that may need untangling. I'm
> pinging Erik. He's probably aware of this but I would like to hear his POV.
> Mobile is high on WMF's priority stack and it's high on my list of personal
> interests.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> What you're saying, Trevor, makes sense, and I agree that we shouldn't
>> have
>> a "code purgatory". I won't presume to speak for Jon, but I imagine his
>> somewhat provocative presentation of Mantle is due, at least in part, to
>> frustration. About a year ago, the mobile web team was gung-ho to start
>> moving parts of MobileFrontend into core. The first step in this process
>> was to convert MobileFrontend into a skin, which we did. The second part
>> was to move our template system into core, since most of the other parts
>> depend on it and there's no MVC framework in core, especially not for
>> client-side use. We put together an RfC on this,[1] and pushed it at the
>> architecture summit. No consensus was reached on moving forward, and
>> instead we reluctantly agreed to hold off on doing anything until Gabriel
>> had a chance to implement an alternate solution for comparison. We
>> recently
>> tested Gabriel's implementation,[2] but are not totally satisfied with it
>> or convinced that it is the best way forward (although Gabriel is still in
>> the process of improving it).
>>
>> After having lost most of our momentum, we recently pushed to prioritize
>> core infrastructure work during mobile web's planning for the upcoming
>> fiscal year, and even talked about breaking off part of the mobile web
>> team
>> into a "skin and infrastructure team". This too was basically shut down in
>> favor of continuing work on mobile features. Then after suffering both of
>> these setbacks we learn that there is yet another nascent proposal for a
>> new core UI skinning infrastructure and even though it doesn't have a
>> single line of code yet, you have been granted 80% of your time to work on
>> it (rather than working on either of other two systems that have already
>> been started). While it's great that you have invited the mobile web team
>> to participate in this effort, I hope you can understand how this entire
>> experience has been extremely demoralizing and frustrating for the mobile
>> web team. Personally, I can't blame Jon for losing patience in the process
>> and (purposefully or not) causing a stink about it.
>>
>> That said, I hope we (the mobile web team) can put aside some of our
>> feelings of being snubbed and outmaneuvered and work (yet again) towards
>> reaching some sort of consensus on moving forward.
>>
>> 1.
>>
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/HTML_templating_library
>> 2.
>>
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/HTML_templating_library/Knockoff_-_Tassembly/Mobile_spike
>>
>>
>> Ryan Kaldari
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Trevor Parscal <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Indeed, this thread is a bit silly.
>> >
>> > If someone wants to make an extension that provides a feature, and
>> someone
>> > else wants to use it, there's nothing wrong with that. But why would
>> such a
>> > thing need proposing?
>> >
>> > If the point of Mantle is only to provide a way to bring templates to
>> the
>> > client, then sell it that way. Look at the code in Mantle, and the way
>> it's
>> > been pitched online and in person. It includes other things too, and has
>> > been repeatedly advertised as a general place where any code that is
>> > experimental can be put, while also simultaneously pushing for others to
>> > depend on it.
>> >
>> > I have no problem with adding useful functionality to ResourceLoader,
>> even
>> > doing so in an extension. I have a problem with trying to develop, what
>> Jon
>> > himself call, a code "purgatory".
>> >
>> > I'm happy to talk in person as well.
>> >
>> > - Trevor
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > This whole thread seems a bit silly to me. We put stuff that should
>> be in
>> > > core into extensions all the time (for lots of different reasons). For
>> > > example: WikiEditor, VisualEditor, Echo, MobileFrontend, JsonConfig,
>> etc.
>> > > So why is Mantle such a bad idea? There's no consensus on implementing
>> > > templating in core yet, so it seems like a pretty cool idea to have an
>> > > extension that other extensions can utilize for that technology in the
>> > > meantime (instead of writing separate code for the same purpose). The
>> > > JsonConfig and EventLogging extensions are basically the same idea,
>> > right?
>> > > I think if Jon had named the extension "TemplateDooDad" (and hadn't
>> > > emphasized the fact that he was avoiding putting the code into core),
>> it
>> > > wouldn't have raised anyone's hackles.
>> > >
>> > > Ryan Kaldari
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jon Robson <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Trevor,
>> > > > That email you quote was about totally different code and a proposal
>> > > > to put it into Mantle and is off topic for this discussion.\T
>> > > > Trevor, please grab me in real life, so we can quell this
>> > > > misunderstanding asap, I feel for whatever reason I am not
>> effectively
>> > > > communicating to you and possibly others and I would like to work
>> out
>> > > > why and avoid future misunderstandings. I had hoped to grab you
>> > > > yesterday but I didn't get time because of the Flow release, hence
>> my
>> > > > lack of reply to that thread.
>> > > >
>> > > > The main problem Mantle currently solves is:
>> > > > "... we both had a need to pass templates from the server to the
>> > > > client via ResourceLoader. Mobile has been doing this for a year,
>> and
>> > > > rather than another big project like Flow reinventing the wheel, we
>> > > > decided it was time to share code."
>> > > >
>> > > > To put it this way:
>> > > > * it would be irresponsible to put code for 2 templating languages
>> > > > (Hogan, Handlebars) into core
>> > > > * it would be irresponsible to put code to serve templates with no
>> > > > templating library whilst the RFC about templating is still
>> > > > unresolved.
>> > > > * it would be irresponsible for two teams to write exactly the same
>> > > > code to serve templates to the client in 2 different extensions.
>> > > >
>> > > > Your own team member Timo was strongly against me putting this code
>> in
>> > > > core in current form and I agreed with him.
>> > > >
>> > > > "We are paid, as professional software engineers, to write code that
>> > > > provides complete solutions, is stable, is clear how to use, doesn't
>> > > > break anything and meets MediaWiki's coding conventions"
>> > > >
>> > > > This particularly offends me by the way. This is a no brainer and of
>> > > > course any code Flow or the mobile team is writing will meet coding
>> > > > standards and be stable. I'm not going to post bad code to Wikimedia
>> > > > servers just as I'm not going to post non-generic non-standardised
>> > > > code to core.
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > Wikitech-l mailing list
>> > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>> > > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
>> > > [hidden email]
>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikitech-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mantle - coding sharing between Flow and MobileFrontend

Trevor Parscal-2
I spoke with Jon in person and I think we have reached some sort of
understanding.

The main point I think should be made public - something I communicated to
Jon in person - is that me stepping away from VisualEditor for a couple of
months to work on UI standardization and a new skinning system has been
proposed without lines of code written or detailed implementations
specified because I know that a lot of the work that needs to be done has
already been done, and the people who can help me tie it all together
already work at the same place that I do and are generally available to me
upon request.

My goal is to make things work for everyone to the greatest degree
possible. I believe fundamentally in voluntary association, and if we are
going to get people to sign on voluntarily to join forces - while it may
requires some sacrifices - it will only happen if we aren't snubbing people
and then turning around and dictating how they work.

It's unfortunate that there has been so much hostility around this issue.
Let's see that it ends now.

- Trevor


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sorry Erik, I missed your post in the discussion above and just saw it as I
> was working my way back through the stack of emails. Anyway, I hope this is
> on your radar.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Sounds like there are some issues here that may need untangling. I'm
> > pinging Erik. He's probably aware of this but I would like to hear his
> POV.
> > Mobile is high on WMF's priority stack and it's high on my list of
> personal
> > interests.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> What you're saying, Trevor, makes sense, and I agree that we shouldn't
> >> have
> >> a "code purgatory". I won't presume to speak for Jon, but I imagine his
> >> somewhat provocative presentation of Mantle is due, at least in part, to
> >> frustration. About a year ago, the mobile web team was gung-ho to start
> >> moving parts of MobileFrontend into core. The first step in this process
> >> was to convert MobileFrontend into a skin, which we did. The second part
> >> was to move our template system into core, since most of the other parts
> >> depend on it and there's no MVC framework in core, especially not for
> >> client-side use. We put together an RfC on this,[1] and pushed it at the
> >> architecture summit. No consensus was reached on moving forward, and
> >> instead we reluctantly agreed to hold off on doing anything until
> Gabriel
> >> had a chance to implement an alternate solution for comparison. We
> >> recently
> >> tested Gabriel's implementation,[2] but are not totally satisfied with
> it
> >> or convinced that it is the best way forward (although Gabriel is still
> in
> >> the process of improving it).
> >>
> >> After having lost most of our momentum, we recently pushed to prioritize
> >> core infrastructure work during mobile web's planning for the upcoming
> >> fiscal year, and even talked about breaking off part of the mobile web
> >> team
> >> into a "skin and infrastructure team". This too was basically shut down
> in
> >> favor of continuing work on mobile features. Then after suffering both
> of
> >> these setbacks we learn that there is yet another nascent proposal for a
> >> new core UI skinning infrastructure and even though it doesn't have a
> >> single line of code yet, you have been granted 80% of your time to work
> on
> >> it (rather than working on either of other two systems that have already
> >> been started). While it's great that you have invited the mobile web
> team
> >> to participate in this effort, I hope you can understand how this entire
> >> experience has been extremely demoralizing and frustrating for the
> mobile
> >> web team. Personally, I can't blame Jon for losing patience in the
> process
> >> and (purposefully or not) causing a stink about it.
> >>
> >> That said, I hope we (the mobile web team) can put aside some of our
> >> feelings of being snubbed and outmaneuvered and work (yet again) towards
> >> reaching some sort of consensus on moving forward.
> >>
> >> 1.
> >>
> >>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/HTML_templating_library
> >> 2.
> >>
> >>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/HTML_templating_library/Knockoff_-_Tassembly/Mobile_spike
> >>
> >>
> >> Ryan Kaldari
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Trevor Parscal <[hidden email]
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Indeed, this thread is a bit silly.
> >> >
> >> > If someone wants to make an extension that provides a feature, and
> >> someone
> >> > else wants to use it, there's nothing wrong with that. But why would
> >> such a
> >> > thing need proposing?
> >> >
> >> > If the point of Mantle is only to provide a way to bring templates to
> >> the
> >> > client, then sell it that way. Look at the code in Mantle, and the way
> >> it's
> >> > been pitched online and in person. It includes other things too, and
> has
> >> > been repeatedly advertised as a general place where any code that is
> >> > experimental can be put, while also simultaneously pushing for others
> to
> >> > depend on it.
> >> >
> >> > I have no problem with adding useful functionality to ResourceLoader,
> >> even
> >> > doing so in an extension. I have a problem with trying to develop,
> what
> >> Jon
> >> > himself call, a code "purgatory".
> >> >
> >> > I'm happy to talk in person as well.
> >> >
> >> > - Trevor
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > This whole thread seems a bit silly to me. We put stuff that should
> >> be in
> >> > > core into extensions all the time (for lots of different reasons).
> For
> >> > > example: WikiEditor, VisualEditor, Echo, MobileFrontend, JsonConfig,
> >> etc.
> >> > > So why is Mantle such a bad idea? There's no consensus on
> implementing
> >> > > templating in core yet, so it seems like a pretty cool idea to have
> an
> >> > > extension that other extensions can utilize for that technology in
> the
> >> > > meantime (instead of writing separate code for the same purpose).
> The
> >> > > JsonConfig and EventLogging extensions are basically the same idea,
> >> > right?
> >> > > I think if Jon had named the extension "TemplateDooDad" (and hadn't
> >> > > emphasized the fact that he was avoiding putting the code into
> core),
> >> it
> >> > > wouldn't have raised anyone's hackles.
> >> > >
> >> > > Ryan Kaldari
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jon Robson <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Trevor,
> >> > > > That email you quote was about totally different code and a
> proposal
> >> > > > to put it into Mantle and is off topic for this discussion.\T
> >> > > > Trevor, please grab me in real life, so we can quell this
> >> > > > misunderstanding asap, I feel for whatever reason I am not
> >> effectively
> >> > > > communicating to you and possibly others and I would like to work
> >> out
> >> > > > why and avoid future misunderstandings. I had hoped to grab you
> >> > > > yesterday but I didn't get time because of the Flow release, hence
> >> my
> >> > > > lack of reply to that thread.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The main problem Mantle currently solves is:
> >> > > > "... we both had a need to pass templates from the server to the
> >> > > > client via ResourceLoader. Mobile has been doing this for a year,
> >> and
> >> > > > rather than another big project like Flow reinventing the wheel,
> we
> >> > > > decided it was time to share code."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > To put it this way:
> >> > > > * it would be irresponsible to put code for 2 templating languages
> >> > > > (Hogan, Handlebars) into core
> >> > > > * it would be irresponsible to put code to serve templates with no
> >> > > > templating library whilst the RFC about templating is still
> >> > > > unresolved.
> >> > > > * it would be irresponsible for two teams to write exactly the
> same
> >> > > > code to serve templates to the client in 2 different extensions.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Your own team member Timo was strongly against me putting this
> code
> >> in
> >> > > > core in current form and I agreed with him.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "We are paid, as professional software engineers, to write code
> that
> >> > > > provides complete solutions, is stable, is clear how to use,
> doesn't
> >> > > > break anything and meets MediaWiki's coding conventions"
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This particularly offends me by the way. This is a no brainer and
> of
> >> > > > course any code Flow or the mobile team is writing will meet
> coding
> >> > > > standards and be stable. I'm not going to post bad code to
> Wikimedia
> >> > > > servers just as I'm not going to post non-generic non-standardised
> >> > > > code to core.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> >> > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >> > > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> >> > > [hidden email]
> >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >> > >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> >> > [hidden email]
> >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikitech-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l