Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-24473195-20150815154410/@comment-24473195-20150818153359

Shining-Armor wrote: It also really makes sense to use GitHub as the main peer-review system as it is dedicated solely to this purpose. It makes it incredibly easy to stay up to date with code, track issues, monitor pull requests, and even manage versions. GitHub should definitely be something that is considered.

If GitHub is utilized here is roughly how the main development cycle would look:

This ensures that all of the tools necessary to properly review code are present where the code is actually being reviewed. GitHub would act as the testing and reviewing environment while Dev wiki itself would act as the production phase where users would actually get the script from. This ensures that the end user is getting working code that has also been rigorously checked over.

Using GitHub in combination with Dev wiki is a far superior solution as opposed to any shoddy peer-review system Wikia could ever hope to throw up. I think generally speaking anyone with development knowledge will agree. Strictly speaking javascript was not meant to be part of mediawiki. It is more than clear that is a hack, it would take  years for wikimedia or wikia to develop an alternative close to github. Although it is entirely possible that with the vast funds they have they could outright buy some packaged solution or company that has developed it.

But unless there is an extension or something similar for it, I don't think the github solution will work very well either, because unlike phabricator, wikia accounts aren't linked to github and there's a learning curve.