Fri, Jul 13
Thu, Jul 12
Added two changesets to overcome this issue. We will rely on the doc block annotation for our refactoring, which will probably take some time...
Yes. We thought it would be a good idea to emit deprecated warnings while we are working on version 3. Looks like We'd better remove them completely.
Wed, Jul 11
Tue, Jul 10
Mon, Jul 9
Sat, Jul 7
Tue, Jul 3
Mon, Jul 2
As a maintainer of a MediaWiki distribution this is a very important topic to me. When I compile a distribution package I only use LTS branches of MediaWiki and extensions/skins (as log as they are available). The bundles extensions/skins are always at an up-to date state (good job!), but a lot of other extensions do not properly support the LTS branches. For non-bundled-WMF extensions (like "Echo") I always had the feeling that they are also supporting LTS branches. Most other extension developers seem not to follow this approach. Maybe WMF could start an initiative to encourage extension developers to at least maintain LTS branches. In own extensions I actually delete all branches that are not actively supported.
Sorry, I did not have the time to read the whole discussion, so maybe this is misses the point. But as an extension developer I'd really love to see more (abstract) base classes that I can rely on. It helps me with the decision of how to structure my code.