Last modified: 2013-07-29 15:20:27 UTC
Configuration settings are the most translated kind of pages on mediawiki.org, but the translations are still very few. On the other hand, the Configure extension duplicates all the settings' summaries and has over 23 thousands translations for them. I'm opening the bug to see what's technically feasible. The discussion on how to manage those pages should continue on the wiki, see URL; for now the reactions seem to be that it's ok to make them translatable in whatever way works and as long as someone else does it. ;-) Matma Rex is doing lots of updates to the extension (method still to be figured out exactly, see I14f5815a) and many translations may need to updated, but it's a pity to waste those translations and it's a nightmare to copy them around. Is it possible to do a dummy install of the extension on mediawiki.org just to use its messages? Like, $wgConfigureEditableSettings with a single dummy config, the special pages unset and the required permissions assigned to no group.
By default, the rights "configure", "configure-all" and "extensions" are given to bureaucrats. We can simply install the extension, then override those settings with $wgGroupPermissions['bureaucrat']['configure'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['bureaucrat']['configure-all'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['bureaucrat']['extensions'] = false; and then no harm can come from it. (Special:ViewConfig will still be available for sysops) But the fact that this extension doesn't handle ALL configuration settings makes me think we might need a more robust solution. Would it make sense to have a DefaultSettings.i18n.php file? On the other hand, the unsupported configuration settings are just a handful: [[mw:Extension:Configure#Special:Configure]]. Maybe the extension's i18n file can include those just for completeness. Which of these choices would be preferable?
(In reply to comment #1) > Which of these choices would be preferable? I think that it doesn't matter and should be a separate bug against the extension. If the community agrees on the fact that it's useful to have the possibility to use such messages on wiki and no technical obstacle is found to enabling it "read only", such imperfections can be sorted out later/independently. In the discussion on wiki nobody opposed; this bug has not yet had comments on security problems or better alternatives or lack thereof, maybe the devs who didn't like the idea much at first will find out that there's no reason not to do it.
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Which of these choices would be preferable? > > I think that it doesn't matter and should be a separate bug against the > extension. If the community agrees on the fact that it's useful to have the > possibility to use such messages on wiki and no technical obstacle is found > to enabling it "read only", such imperfections can be sorted out > later/independently. Agreed, let's focus the discussion on getting the extension deployed. > maybe the devs who didn't like the idea much at first will find out > that there's no reason not to do it. Who are the devs who didn't like the idea? Maybe we should poke them towards commenting on this bug.
