Talk:Request for Comment/Hybrid extension management: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Vogel.robert (talk | contribs) m (Vogel.robert moved page Talk:Request for Comment/Hybrid extension management to Talk:Request for Comment/Hybrid extension management) |
Jeroendedauw (talk | contribs) (โโ: new section) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==Further notes== | ==Further notes== | ||
* To discuss: Drupal as an example of how Composer was adopted by a project as "module (=extension) management tool" (later!) | * To discuss: Drupal as an example of how Composer was adopted by a project as "module (=extension) management tool" (later!) | ||
== Looks good to me == | |||
As someone that has been using Composer in several extensions for many years, this proposal looks good to me. --[[User:Jeroendedauw|Jeroendedauw]] ([[User talk:Jeroendedauw|talk]]) 12:48, 3 April 2020 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 11:48, 3 April 2020
Improvements of ExtensionRegistry
Let's assume "ExtendedVisualEditor" extension has a dependency to "VisualEditor" in version "1.31", but "VisualEditor" is not enabled or enabled but in version "1.35". Current situation is that putting
wfLoadExtension( 'ExtendedVisualEditor' );
to LocalSettings.php will result in an uncatchable Exception, which will bring the wiki down.
Rather than this, MediaWiki ExtensionRegistry should just "load" but not "enable" it. It could then be listed e.g. on "Special:Version" as "disabled". The actual way of how to implement this still has to be discussed.
Notes about Composer as a build tool
- BlueSpice wants real version constraints instead of dev-REL* (later!)
- Versioning of MW Extensions instead of relying on release branch (later!)
Further notes
- To discuss: Drupal as an example of how Composer was adopted by a project as "module (=extension) management tool" (later!)
Looks good to me
As someone that has been using Composer in several extensions for many years, this proposal looks good to me. --Jeroendedauw (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2020 (EDT)