On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Jason Ji <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for your feedback. To clarify a bit, we're not thinking of using > LiquidThreads as it is - we have a different extension we will be building, > with some different needs than LQT has. For example, we may not need any > integration with watchlists. So our thought is that we might fork LQT and > modify it to suit our needs. We're still very early in the design phase. > The bad part of LQT is not about interaction with watchlist. It will be essentially untouched by any trimming short of complete rewrite. > Max - when you say just use Flow, do you mean we should fork the Flow code > base and work from there, or that we should just install Flow? Flow looks > interesting, but we're not sure it will have the features we need, and our > timeframe is likely to be shorter than the timeframe of Flow development. > If you fork something, you will have to maintain it forever - why not put the same effort in contributing to mainline instead? And Flow is quite complete for most use cases, and its team is mostly working on adding support for various crazy workflows user communities have created in more than 10 years without a good discussion system. I don't think you need to wait for these. > Is there somewhere I can go read in detail about the bugs and unfixable > problems with LQT? We might not fork LQT at all, but we were also thinking > of using wiki pages to store comment text. So if that idea is fundamentally > broken, it would be great to know why. I already explained why, bugs are here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/search/query/ojED3mdcIKDQ/ -- Best regards, Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]]) _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list To unsubscribe, go to: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
