svippy wrote:

A hard patch

Here is an early copy of a patch. It may need add the variable it uses in the GlobalSettings.php file. But that is another decision area.

There is a guide on how to use it here:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Svippong/AdditionalTabs

Attached:

Currently this kind of thing can be done by using the SkinTemplateNavigation hook to modify the 'namespaces'. (For backwards compat you can add something to SkinTemplateTabs too, it's 1.18 when SkinTemplateNavigation starts to apply to all SkinTemplateSkins)

*Bulk BZ Change: +Patch to open bugs with patches attached that are missing the keyword*

sumanah wrote:

+need-review, inferring that svip wants feedback on the patch's approach

sumanah wrote:

Robin, could you give svip some feedback?

The patch is quite old and would probably need to be adapted to current MediaWiki.

But there's also a new bug about the same issue, see bug 42214.

• Bug 42214 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

(In reply to comment #7)

• Bug 42214 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Okay, what this needs is a plan of action going forward. I've started an RFC here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Custom_inter-namespace_tabs.

I'm removing "patch-need-review" and adding "easy". This bug is pretty easy to resolve, it just has a few unanswered implementation questions. This is why it needs an RFC to hammer things out properly.

p.selitskas wrote:

Please review: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/37569/

svippy wrote:

(In reply to comment #8)

(In reply to comment #7)

> > *** Bug 42214 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Okay, what this needs is a plan of action going forward. I've started an RFC
here:
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Custom_inter-
namespace_tabs>.

I'm removing "patch-need-review" and adding "easy". This bug is pretty easy
to
resolve, it just has a few unanswered implementation questions. This is why
it
needs an RFC to hammer things out properly.

I decided to comment on your RFC. I hope I am doing it right!

p.selitskas wrote:

I've submitted a patch into Gerrit about a month ago, and nobody reviewed it.

Is there anybody out there? https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/37569/

p.selitskas wrote:

The second take on this: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:NamespaceRelations

Needs one tiny fix to be merged into core to support queries (like editintro in Wikinews): https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/43118/. Request for new repo is pending.

What's the status of this? Appropriate patches are merged, is there anything else left to do here?

(In reply to comment #13)

What's the status of this? Appropriate patches are merged, is there anything
else left to do here?

No answer - assuming everything is fine.

p.selitskas wrote:

(In reply to comment #14)

(In reply to comment #13)

What's the status of this? Appropriate patches are merged, is there anything
else left to do here?

No answer - assuming everything is fine.

Sorry, I think it should be set FIXED if deployed.

The NamespaceRelations has a huge flow: if a page is moved, the page in a tertiary namespace is not moved. I believe the extension should not be deployed until I/anyone issues a patch that introduces this feature.

As from what I have seen in MovePage (correct me if I misspelled it), it's a mess of code and needs a lot of love. I'll be looking into it soon to have the feature described above implemented.

(In reply to comment #15)

Sorry, I think it should be set FIXED if deployed.

FIXED refers to merged into the codebase in Bugzilla. Deployment schedule can be found at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.22/Roadmap

(In reply to comment #16)

(In reply to comment #15)

Sorry, I think it should be set FIXED if deployed.

FIXED refers to merged into the codebase in Bugzilla.

It seems particularly unwise to argue with the person who's been actively working on this bug and to whom the bug is currently assigned as to whether the bug is fixed or not.

This bug probably needs a few more dependencies (to cover, for example, the page move issue mentioned in comment 15). wizardist: if you could file any dependent bugs, that would be great.

Deployment schedule can be found at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.22/Roadmap

Please do not link to irrelevant pages. There's nothing on that page that has anything to do with this bug. This feature is being implemented in an extension, not in MediaWiki core, and this extension has not yet been installed on Wikimedia wikis. The MediaWiki 1.22 roadmap, interesting as it is, currently has no bearing here.

(In reply to comment #17)

(In reply to comment #16)

(In reply to comment #15)

Sorry, I think it should be set FIXED if deployed.

FIXED refers to merged into the codebase in Bugzilla.

It seems particularly unwise to argue with the person who's been actively
working on this bug and to whom the bug is currently assigned as to whether
the bug is fixed or not.

If there is still codework to do that has not been done yet (and that seems to be the case as per latest comments), this bug report should indeed remain open.
(If all required patches had been *merged* into the code repository but not *deployed* yet on Wikimedia servers, this bug report should be RESOLVED FIXED.)

This bug probably needs a few more dependencies (to cover, for example, the
page move issue mentioned in comment 15). wizardist: if you could file any
dependent bugs, that would be great.

Yeah, that would definitely make it easier to see where we're at. :)

Sorry for the confusion created here.

Removing the 'easy' keyword. Extension is apparently written and awaiting code review, which is definitely not 'easy'.

I'm not sure what the ask is here? IS this a site request to deploy https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:NamespaceRelations or is the request to close out the RFC (which appears to be accepted but seems to have no plan)

What is the main problem (solution-agnostic) that we want to solve here?

Right now it isn't anything. Is there renewed interest in this from Product? Or can we simply close this as an inactive/unresourced idea ("declined"), which is effectively what it was until now, by virtue of the 2011 RFC not having been imported into our 2015 Phab process.