Page MenuHomePhabricator

Report bug link on every page
Closed, DeclinedPublic

Description

Author: brian

Description:
If we can have prominent "edit this page" links, why not
have prominent "report bug" links, especially when we are
using our projects to test software?


Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement

Details

Reference
bz3865

Event Timeline

bzimport raised the priority of this task from to Lowest.Nov 21 2014, 8:54 PM
bzimport set Reference to bz3865.
bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).

We're not using our projects to test software, we're writing software for the
projects.

brian wrote:

(In reply to comment #1)

We're not using our projects to test software, we're

writing software for the projects.

The software is just as important a part of the projects
as the content.

brian wrote:

(In reply to comment #1)

We're not using our projects to test software, we're

writing software for the projects.

The software is just as important a part of the
projects
as the content.

brian wrote:

(In reply to comment #1)

We're not using our projects to test software, we're

writing software for the projects.

If we're not using our projects to test software, why
are we running them on "alpha" software that we advise
others not to use?

For the thousandth time, the software is written specifically to run the Wikimedia
sites. That is its purpose in life.

Additionally, we make it available for third parties to use. There are version numbers
slapped on to label the releases to third parties.

Anyway, regarding adding a bug link: that can be done on any wiki by editing
MediaWiki:Sidebar appropriately, if the people on that wiki want to have such a link.

avarab wrote:

(In reply to comment #5)

For the thousandth time, the software is written specifically to run the

Wikimedia

sites. That is its purpose in life.

Additionally, we make it available for third parties to use. There are version

numbers

slapped on to label the releases to third parties.

<CIA-12> vibber * phase3/includes/DefaultSettings.php: Change version number
from '1.6alpha' to '1.6devel' so know-it-alls who bitch about how we're running
alpha software can shut the fuck up

;)

brian wrote:

(In reply to comment #5)

For the thousandth time, the software is written

specifically to run the Wikimedia sites. That is its
purpose in life.

This just validates my comments (2, 3):

The software is just as important a part of the
projects as the content.

(In reply to comment #6)

Anyway, regarding adding a bug link: that can be done

on any wiki by editing
MediaWiki:Sidebar appropriately, if the people on that
wiki want to have such a link.

That's why this is filed under "Wikimedia web sites",
not "MediaWiki".

You want to talk to the community and sysops on whichever wiki(s) you want
to add such a link. They can do this without the intervention of the
developer team.

brian wrote:

All the wikis...but it doesn't look like anyone here
agrees!

The point is, no one here has to agree because it's not our decision.
How to best expose the technical side of a bug report system to users is
something that the community on the wiki would be more approriate to
decide.

Eg currently there are links to bugzilla on the Village Pump (technical)
on en.wikipedia; some things will then get reported directly into
bugzilla while others will get discussed there until someone moves it
over. On non-English wikis, exposing a Bugzilla link directly might be
relatively unfriendly, but having it as a link on a first-level local
page which explains what it's about and when issues should go here is
very appropriate.

brian wrote:

(In reply to comment #12)

[snip]
On non-English wikis, exposing a Bugzilla link

directly might be relatively unfriendly, but having it
as a link on a first-level local page which explains
what it's about and when issues should go here is very
appropriate.

Are all our development work and tools in English (as
far as I know, yes)? Why should they be, when all our
other projects are multilingual?

rowan.collins wrote:

(In reply to comment #13)

Are all our development work and tools in English (as
far as I know, yes)? Why should they be, when all our
other projects are multilingual?

Because they are in whatever language most developers speak; this turns out to
be English, although I believe German would come second. Unlike the projects
themselves, the goal of MediaWiki is not to make its development open to all -
the goal is to facilitate its use by Wikimedia projects. Opening the development
tools up to other languages *might* help in that goal, but since the core
developers would then not understand them [and each other?], it might also
hinder it.

I think the mistake you are making is considering the software to be *part of*
"the projects", when in reality it exists outside of them, as a tool to
facilitate them. It's true that it's a very *important* tool, and the success of
the projects is closely bound to its quality and development; but that doesn't
mean it must necessarily be bound by the same rules and considerations, only
that it must be "good" and responsive to the needs of its users.

brian wrote:

The problem with having translated explanations on all
the wikis is the duplication - see bug 3916 and bug
3917.

robchur wrote:

How is it duplicating to have different language versions of the same
explanation on different projects? English explanation != French explanation in
terms of language or grammar, hence the texts differ, hence the information is
not the same - ergo, it is not duplication.

brian wrote:

(In reply to comment #16)

How is it duplicating to have different language

versions of the sameexplanation on different projects?
English explanation != French explanation interms of
language or grammar, hence the texts differ, hence the
information isnot the same - ergo, it is not
duplication.

I meant, for example, that having the same explanation
on the French Wikipedia and the French Wiktionary is
duplication.

robchur wrote:

Unavoidable. You've completely skipped past the point you were trying to make
filing this request. Individual wikis can add, at the consensus of their
communities, links to whatever the hell they like on their sidebars. It's not a
development issue and never was.