Last modified: 2011-02-08 21:56:11 UTC
Two months ago, I committed r63300 (and the follow-up r63338) to fix bug 10183 by allowing users to add skin-independent custom scripts and styles to the subpages /common.js and /common.css of their user page. I'd hoped that the change would've been deployed to Wikimedia sites by now, but as this hasn't yet happened, it would be nice to get it done before the default skin on e.g. en.wikipedia is changed from MonoBook to Vector (currently planned for May 13, apparently).
Ps. Bumping priority due to impending deadline -- there's no "urgency" keyword on Bugzilla. Feel free to downgrade if you feel this is inappropriate (or if this doesn't get done before the skin change happens).
Bumping it back down, The skin is already choose-able under their preferences and the required pages can already be created (vector.css and vector.js) or the pre-existing ones can be moved using the standard move function. A hacky method in the mean time would be adding one of the following to the appriaote pages: > 1. importScript('User:USERNAME/monobook.js'); > 2. document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:USERNAME/PAGENAME.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"></script>');
(In reply to comment #2) > Bumping it back down, The skin is already choose-able under their preferences > and the required pages can already be created (vector.css and vector.js) or the > pre-existing ones can be moved using the standard move function. > > A hacky method in the mean time would be adding one of the following to the > appriaote pages: > > 1. importScript('User:USERNAME/monobook.js'); > > 2. document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:USERNAME/PAGENAME.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"></script>'); I'm not quite sure your rationale for this. It seems eminently sensible to have a common.js and .css, so that documentation for every single script doesn't have to explain the necessities of importing it into the correct skin-based page. Why offer a 'hacky method in the mean time' when this excellent solution is available?
Except for critical fixed and security leaks, as far as I know nothing will be predeployed. It will be deployed when the review proces of all the commits has reached this revision and the wmfbranch is created. From what I can see this revision is already reviewed and now waiting for the 1.17wmf5 branch to be created. The regular release branch for 1.17 (under which this commit belongs) has been created December 2009. As soon as that reaches a somewhat stable state, from what I hear the wmf branch will be created not too long afterwards, so perhaps January or February 2011. Then a little more testing and thumbling and it'll be deployed on the wmf cluster, replacing 1.16wmf4. Closing this bug as INVALID since it will be released in the regular schedule and doesn't require a seperate bug for it. [1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Branch_points
(In reply to comment #4) > 1.17wmf5 branch to be created. > 1.17wmf1 > The regular release branch for 1.17 (under which this commit belongs) has been > created December 2009. December 2010; it hasn't been rotting for a year :)
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > The regular release branch for 1.17 (under which this commit belongs) has been > > created December 2009. > December 2010; it hasn't been rotting for a year :) Yeah, that's what I meant. I'm getting used to the fact that we're living in 2011, yet "last year" is still defined as "2009". ;-)
