[Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
Hey, I have a wiki that is accessible both via HTTP and HTTPS which has the file cache enabled. When someone loads a page over HTTP and it gets cached, it will have HTTP resource URLs in it. When someone then loads it over HTTPS and gets this cached page, they'll end up with mixed content, which causes the resources to not be loaded on recent FF versions. Is there a way to split the cache based on protocol used? Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw http://www.bn2vs.com Don't panic. Don't be evil. ~=[,,_,,]:3 -- ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
The standard practice is not to split the cache but to use protocol-relative urls. ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/] On 2013-10-01 12:45 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote: Hey, I have a wiki that is accessible both via HTTP and HTTPS which has the file cache enabled. When someone loads a page over HTTP and it gets cached, it will have HTTP resource URLs in it. When someone then loads it over HTTPS and gets this cached page, they'll end up with mixed content, which causes the resources to not be loaded on recent FF versions. Is there a way to split the cache based on protocol used? Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw http://www.bn2vs.com Don't panic. Don't be evil. ~=[,,_,,]:3 -- ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
Hey, The standard practice is not to split the cache but to use protocol-relative urls. This wiki is running MediaWiki 1.21.2 with the Vector skin. The resources with protocol specific URLs are resource loader modules. Does that mean I have to modify the Vector skin? I hope not. Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw http://www.bn2vs.com Don't panic. Don't be evil. ~=[,,_,,]:3 -- ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 2013-10-01 12:57 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote: Hey, The standard practice is not to split the cache but to use protocol-relative urls. This wiki is running MediaWiki 1.21.2 with the Vector skin. The resources with protocol specific URLs are resource loader modules. Does that mean I have to modify the Vector skin? I hope not. Cheers Oh right, the file cache works that way. That's probably a bug we'll have to fix. Most sites with HTTPS are more likely using a real front end cache rather than the file cache. That said even if we can make the file cache split by protocol that's probably not the right solution. I can't think of any reason for RL to ever have a valid reason to output fully absolute urls. The proper solution would probably be dealing with RL instead. Could you give some more info for debugging. ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/] ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
Le 01/10/13 09:45, Jeroen De Dauw a écrit : I have a wiki that is accessible both via HTTP and HTTPS which has the file cache enabled. When someone loads a page over HTTP and it gets cached, it will have HTTP resource URLs in it. When someone then loads it over HTTPS and gets this cached page, they'll end up with mixed content, which causes the resources to not be loaded on recent FF versions. Is there a way to split the cache based on protocol used? The file cache is barely maintained and I am not sure whether anyone is still relying on it. We should probably remove that feature entirely and instruct people to setup a real frontend cache instead. -- Antoine hashar Musso ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 1 October 2013 12:44, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote: Le 01/10/13 09:45, Jeroen De Dauw a écrit : I have a wiki that is accessible both via HTTP and HTTPS which has the file cache enabled. When someone loads a page over HTTP and it gets cached, it will have HTTP resource URLs in it. When someone then loads it over HTTPS and gets this cached page, they'll end up with mixed content, which causes the resources to not be loaded on recent FF versions. Is there a way to split the cache based on protocol used? The file cache is barely maintained and I am not sure whether anyone is still relying on it. We should probably remove that feature entirely and instruct people to setup a real frontend cache instead. I used it for a few days on rationalwiki.org and it was *great*! Then we got a coupla Squids and they're just ridiculously better. - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
Hey, The file cache is barely maintained and I am not sure whether anyone is still relying on it. We should probably remove that feature entirely and instruct people to setup a real frontend cache instead. This means we say you no can has cache to people using shared hosts. Do we really want to do that? If so, the docs ought to be updated, and the deprecation announced. Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw http://www.bn2vs.com Don't panic. Don't be evil. ~=[,,_,,]:3 -- ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 10/01/2013 07:44 AM, Antoine Musso wrote: The file cache is barely maintained and I am not sure whether anyone is still relying on it. We should probably remove that feature entirely and instruct people to setup a real frontend cache instead. While this is a nice thought, it is completely unreasonable for the majority of wikis out there who use shared hosting. We should find a way to maintain these bits that WMF doesn't use. Mark. -- Mark A. Hershberger NicheWork LLC 717-271-1084 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Mark A. Hershberger m...@nichework.comwrote: On 10/01/2013 07:44 AM, Antoine Musso wrote: The file cache is barely maintained and I am not sure whether anyone is still relying on it. We should probably remove that feature entirely and instruct people to setup a real frontend cache instead. While this is a nice thought, it is completely unreasonable for the majority of wikis out there who use shared hosting. We should find a way to maintain these bits that WMF doesn't use. We've been moving away from being friendly to old-style shared-hosting servers for some time with key features that people are going to expect to replicate on their MediaWikis in the future... * Lua templates * VE and Parsoid * Math next-generation version migrating to using a web service instead of a shell-out * ??? I'd recommend starting to deprecate support for 'shared PHP web host' environments altogether in favor of either custom installations or virtual machines -- VMs are both more flexible and easier to install. That might not be something we can do immediately, but we should strongly think about planning that way for the future. (I also strongly recommend having an official MediaWiki hosting support service, with ad- and ad-free options, various degrees of customization vs automated service, etc. This'd cover a huge portion of the I just need to stick a wiki somewhere cases that are probably ending up on shared hosting because people don't have money for better hosting and/or the experience to run their own VM.) -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Mark A. Hershberger m...@nichework.com wrote: On 10/01/2013 07:44 AM, Antoine Musso wrote: The file cache is barely maintained and I am not sure whether anyone is still relying on it. We should probably remove that feature entirely and instruct people to setup a real frontend cache instead. While this is a nice thought, it is completely unreasonable for the majority of wikis out there who use shared hosting. We should find a way to maintain these bits that WMF doesn't use. We've been moving away from being friendly to old-style shared-hosting servers for some time with key features that people are going to expect to replicate on their MediaWikis in the future... * Lua templates * VE and Parsoid * Math next-generation version migrating to using a web service instead of a shell-out * ??? I'd recommend starting to deprecate support for 'shared PHP web host' environments altogether in favor of either custom installations or virtual machines -- VMs are both more flexible and easier to install. That might not be something we can do immediately, but we should strongly think about planning that way for the future. I'd like to echo everything Brion said here. I think we were just talking about this last week or the week before, right? -Chad ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 10/01/2013 09:25 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: (I also strongly recommend having an official MediaWiki hosting support service, with ad- and ad-free options, various degrees of customization vs automated service, etc. This'd cover a huge portion of the I just need to stick a wiki somewhere cases that are probably ending up on shared hosting because people don't have money for better hosting and/or the experience to run their own VM.) Interestingly enough, that circles back to something I've been planning for Labs for a while now. Our use case is to allow easy deploy of MW installs with an arbitrary set of extensions and easy configuration for core and extension dev work (almost certainly based around vagrant), but that same setup/infrastructure should be reusable to do something like you describe. -- Marc ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 10/01/2013 09:25 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: We've been moving away from being friendly to old-style shared-hosting servers for some time with key features that people are going to expect to replicate on their MediaWikis in the future... Fair enough. If WMF were the only user of MW, you could freely decide to take MW it whatever direction you choose. But doing that now without considering the needs of other MW users isn't responsible. Not everyone needs to run Wikipedia and it is a worthwhile effort to make sure MediaWiki remains scalable down to the shared-hosting level. On 10/01/2013 09:56 AM, Chad wrote: I'd like to echo everything Brion said here. I think we were just talking about this last week or the week before, right? You and Brion talked about this? I don't recall any conversation on wikitech-l about abandoning support for the little guy. Before a decision like this is made (and I would like people like David Gerard of RationalWiki to continue to weigh in, not just WMF employees), I would like to get some actual statistics on the number of shared hosting users. How are they running their sites? Do larger wikis have the time and the budget to support this sort of move? Perhaps WMF should just fork off their own enterprise branch of MW? It would be good to discuss this on mediawiki-l, too. -- Mark A. Hershberger NicheWork LLC 717-271-1084 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 01.10.2013, 16:21 Jeroen wrote: This means we say you no can has cache to people using shared hosts. Do we really want to do that? If so, the docs ought to be updated, and the deprecation announced. Some shared hosts have PHP 5.0 or even 4 - should we care enough to support them at this point? I think the policy has been we make basic stuff work on shared installations, but if you want performance, VPS/dedicated is a must for a few years now, and this deprecation aligns nicely with it. -- Best regards, Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]]) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
Last I checked I'm making recommendations in an early stage of discussion on an open mailing list, not making decisions for everybody by myself. -- brion On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Mark A. Hershberger m...@nichework.comwrote: On 10/01/2013 09:25 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: We've been moving away from being friendly to old-style shared-hosting servers for some time with key features that people are going to expect to replicate on their MediaWikis in the future... Fair enough. If WMF were the only user of MW, you could freely decide to take MW it whatever direction you choose. But doing that now without considering the needs of other MW users isn't responsible. Not everyone needs to run Wikipedia and it is a worthwhile effort to make sure MediaWiki remains scalable down to the shared-hosting level. On 10/01/2013 09:56 AM, Chad wrote: I'd like to echo everything Brion said here. I think we were just talking about this last week or the week before, right? You and Brion talked about this? I don't recall any conversation on wikitech-l about abandoning support for the little guy. Before a decision like this is made (and I would like people like David Gerard of RationalWiki to continue to weigh in, not just WMF employees), I would like to get some actual statistics on the number of shared hosting users. How are they running their sites? Do larger wikis have the time and the budget to support this sort of move? Perhaps WMF should just fork off their own enterprise branch of MW? It would be good to discuss this on mediawiki-l, too. -- Mark A. Hershberger NicheWork LLC 717-271-1084 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
Indeed. Please don't read into me speaking with Brion. It was just idle chit-chat over lunch which ended with me saying something about bringing it up on-list. Obviously any decisions on such an issue need to be widely discussed and advertised. -Chad On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org wrote: Last I checked I'm making recommendations in an early stage of discussion on an open mailing list, not making decisions for everybody by myself. -- brion On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Mark A. Hershberger m...@nichework.com wrote: On 10/01/2013 09:25 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: We've been moving away from being friendly to old-style shared-hosting servers for some time with key features that people are going to expect to replicate on their MediaWikis in the future... Fair enough. If WMF were the only user of MW, you could freely decide to take MW it whatever direction you choose. But doing that now without considering the needs of other MW users isn't responsible. Not everyone needs to run Wikipedia and it is a worthwhile effort to make sure MediaWiki remains scalable down to the shared-hosting level. On 10/01/2013 09:56 AM, Chad wrote: I'd like to echo everything Brion said here. I think we were just talking about this last week or the week before, right? You and Brion talked about this? I don't recall any conversation on wikitech-l about abandoning support for the little guy. Before a decision like this is made (and I would like people like David Gerard of RationalWiki to continue to weigh in, not just WMF employees), I would like to get some actual statistics on the number of shared hosting users. How are they running their sites? Do larger wikis have the time and the budget to support this sort of move? Perhaps WMF should just fork off their own enterprise branch of MW? It would be good to discuss this on mediawiki-l, too. -- Mark A. Hershberger NicheWork LLC 717-271-1084 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Mark A. Hershberger m...@nichework.comwrote: On 10/01/2013 09:25 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: We've been moving away from being friendly to old-style shared-hosting servers for some time with key features that people are going to expect to replicate on their MediaWikis in the future... Fair enough. If WMF were the only user of MW, you could freely decide to take MW it whatever direction you choose. But doing that now without considering the needs of other MW users isn't responsible. We are considering other users here. Isn't that the point of this thread? Not everyone needs to run Wikipedia and it is a worthwhile effort to make sure MediaWiki remains scalable down to the shared-hosting level. I disagree. I think making it scale down to the VPS level is acceptable. Should you always be able to at least *install* the bare MediaWiki on some dinky shared host? Sure. But we don't have to make promises about scaling. It's never going to scale, ever. Before a decision like this is made (and I would like people like David Gerard of RationalWiki to continue to weigh in, not just WMF employees), I would like to get some actual statistics on the number of shared hosting users. How are they running their sites? Do larger wikis have the time and the budget to support this sort of move? If they're large they're not on shared hosting. It's impossible to run a large wiki on shared hosting. Also: moving? Who said anything about moving? We're talking about possibly just not caring about shared hosts so much, not actively breaking them. Perhaps WMF should just fork off their own enterprise branch of MW? We do branch MediaWiki every release cycle. A full blown fork would be a bad idea. -Chad ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 10/01/2013 10:50 AM, Chad wrote: Indeed. Please don't read into me speaking with Brion. It was just idle chit-chat over lunch which ended with me saying something about bringing it up on-list. Chad, Brion, I appologize for making it sound like you speak for the Foundation's direction when it comes to MediaWiki. You don't and I understand that. You both have important voices that have a strong influence on the direction of the conversation, though, which is why I responded the way I did. More than anything, I would like some real data from non-WMF users of MW. Wikitech-l isn't the right place to get that data, so I want to avoid giving the idea that the decision to drop support for shared hosting has been made. I think I've accomplished that, so I'll stand down now while I look for a way to get the data I want. -- Mark A. Hershberger NicheWork LLC 717-271-1084 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Summary of GSoC project Implementing section handling in Semantic Forms
Hello everyone,
During the Google Summer of Code 2013 program that concluded recently I
worked on implementing section handling in the Semantic Forms
extension[1][2] which also involved enabling the Page Schemas extension[3]
to handle sections as well. This means that now, not only templates but
sections too can be defined in forms. The work also included adding unit
tests to the Semantic Forms extension.
In SF a new {{{section}}} tag was introduced to the form definition syntax
to define sections in forms. The Special:CreateForm helper page allows you
to add sections to forms by specifying the section name and also modify its
properties. If you want to add sections manually the basic usage is -
{{{section|section_name|level=header_level}}}. The level parameter
here is optional.
PS now supports a Section XML element to be included in the schema to
define sections. The Special:EditSchema page can be used to add sections to
the schema and modify their attributes. As before Generate pages will
create the form with the templates and sections in the schema.
These changes can be tried out by pulling the latest code from Git. Section
handling for SF and PS will be available with their next released versions.
Any feedback or bug reports are welcome.
Many thanks to Yaron Koren who mentored this GSoC project and to everybody
who reviewed code and provided suggestions for improvement. It has been a
wonderful learning experience and I hope the newly added section handling
capabilities will be useful in defining a more complete structure for forms!
[1].
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Himeshi/GSoC_2013/Project#Project_Description
[2].http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Forms
[3]. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Page_Schemas
-Himeshi-
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
As the last person to maintain that code, I tend to agree with this. -- View this message in context: http://wikimedia.7.x6.nabble.com/File-cache-HTTPS-question-tp5014197p5014229.html Sent from the Wikipedia Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.comwrote: The file cache is barely maintained and I am not sure whether anyone is still relying on it. We should probably remove that feature entirely and instruct people to setup a real frontend cache instead. This means we say you no can has cache to people using shared hosts. Do we really want to do that? If so, the docs ought to be updated, and the deprecation announced. In my opinion we should completely drop support for shared hosts. It's 2013 and virtual hosts are cheap and superior in every way. Supporting shared hosting severely limits what we can do in the software reasonably. - Ryan ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 10/01/2013 07:27 AM, Mark A. Hershberger wrote: On 10/01/2013 09:25 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: We've been moving away from being friendly to old-style shared-hosting servers for some time with key features that people are going to expect to replicate on their MediaWikis in the future... Fair enough. If WMF were the only user of MW, you could freely decide to take MW it whatever direction you choose. But doing that now without considering the needs of other MW users isn't responsible. Not everyone needs to run Wikipedia and it is a worthwhile effort to make sure MediaWiki remains scalable down to the shared-hosting level. With VPS prices starting in the $2-$5 a month range [1][2][3][4] there are not many reasons left for using less secure and less predictable shared hosting. People have been migrating away from shared hosting for a while, and this trend is set to continue in the future. Given limited resources, it seems to be wiser to start focusing our efforts on packaging rather than shared hosting work-arounds. Using the best tools for different parts of the system rather than limiting ourselves to what is available on $.99 shared hosts lets us make MediaWiki more efficient and cleaner. This benefits users both at the low and high end. I'm looking forward to the days when apt-get install mediawiki installs and configures a fully-featured MediaWiki system with proper caching, VE, Parsoid, Lua and so on. And performs well on a $2 a month VPS. Gabriel [1]: http://ramnode.com/ [2]: http://lowendbox.com/ [3]: https://www.digitalocean.com/ [4]: http://www.vpscolo.com/ ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 1 October 2013 17:10, Gabriel Wicke gwi...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'm looking forward to the days when apt-get install mediawiki installs and configures a fully-featured MediaWiki system with proper caching, VE, Parsoid, Lua and so on. And performs well on a $2 a month VPS. That would be lovely! So that stuff will be stable and present for the next LTS, as is likely to be used for Debian's package? - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Gabriel Wicke gwi...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'm looking forward to the days when apt-get install mediawiki installs and configures a fully-featured MediaWiki system with proper caching, VE, Parsoid, Lua and so on. And performs well on a $2 a month VPS. Not in the same vein, but there exists Labsvagrant now - https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Labs-vagrant, and setting up VE, Parsoid, Lua, Caching is about 2 commands in total there :) Third parties who wish to use this can also use it without too much trouble (provided they're already using puppet...) -- Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 10/01/2013 12:10 PM, Gabriel Wicke wrote: With VPS prices starting in the $2-$5 a month range there are not many reasons left for using less secure and less predictable shared hosting. People have their own reasons for using shared hosting. This doesn't mean we should support them no matter what, but their needs can't be dismissed automatically. Using a VPS requires more knowledge than your average shared hosting account. Telling people You can't use Dreamhost or GoDaddy to run your wiki is supercilious. Again, I think the best route to go here is to try and gather some real data from the users of MediaWiki instead of trying to come to a decision on a mailing list that is populated mostly with developers. -- Mark A. Hershberger NicheWork LLC 717-271-1084 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Mark A. Hershberger m...@nichework.comwrote: Again, I think the best route to go here is to try and gather some real data from the users of MediaWiki instead of trying to come to a decision on a mailing list that is populated mostly with developers. Seems you've volunteered for the job! Please let us know when you have some data to share with the rest of the group. In the meantime, please don't tell people that they can't share their professional opinions and experiences with the limitations and problems of old-fashioned shared hosting and the promises of modern VPS-based hosting. That's valuable input, too. -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
I'm usually just an observer on these lists, but I'll weigh in as a user who runs MediaWiki on a shared host. The host *is* a VPS, but our wiki is used by the environmental department of a large international non-profit. As such it lives on the enviro server along with some WordPress sites and other minor things. If we have to give the wiki its own dedicated VPS, it will likely not survive, or we will move to another platform. I see some REALLY low costs for VPSes being tossed around here, but honestly, we'd probably be looking at a minimum of $50/month to give the site its own dedicated VPS. I realize that in the grand scheme of things, that's not a huge cost, but at that point, management will probably insist on making the site pay for itself rather than the current situation of letting it exist on shared resources. -Chris On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Mark A. Hershberger m...@nichework.com wrote: Again, I think the best route to go here is to try and gather some real data from the users of MediaWiki instead of trying to come to a decision on a mailing list that is populated mostly with developers. Seems you've volunteered for the job! Please let us know when you have some data to share with the rest of the group. In the meantime, please don't tell people that they can't share their professional opinions and experiences with the limitations and problems of old-fashioned shared hosting and the promises of modern VPS-based hosting. That's valuable input, too. -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 10/01/2013 12:36 PM, Brion Vibber wrote: Seems you've volunteered for the job! Please let us know when you have some data to share with the rest of the group. I did say I was going to try and get the data. :) In the meantime, please don't tell people that they can't share their professional opinions and experiences with the limitations and problems of old-fashioned shared hosting and the promises of modern VPS-based hosting. That's valuable input, too. I agree. If I can across as saying Your opinion doesn't matter that was not intended. Deciding that MediaWiki shouldn't worry about shared hosting is a major change, though, and it needs more discussion than just the developers and users with substantial technical skill. -- Mark A. Hershberger NicheWork LLC 717-271-1084 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Christopher Wilson gwsuper...@gmail.comwrote: I'm usually just an observer on these lists, but I'll weigh in as a user who runs MediaWiki on a shared host. The host *is* a VPS, but our wiki is used by the environmental department of a large international non-profit. As such it lives on the enviro server along with some WordPress sites and other minor things. If we have to give the wiki its own dedicated VPS, it will likely not survive, or we will move to another platform. I see some REALLY low costs for VPSes being tossed around here, but honestly, we'd probably be looking at a minimum of $50/month to give the site its own dedicated VPS. I realize that in the grand scheme of things, that's not a huge cost, but at that point, management will probably insist on making the site pay for itself rather than the current situation of letting it exist on shared resources. As long as you're getting the performance you need from your wiki I wouldn't see any reason to worry. What we're talking about here is truly shared hosting, where you've got maybe FTP access and a single mysql database at your disposal. -Chad ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
Hey, Again, I think the best route to go here is to try and gather some real data from the users of MediaWiki instead of trying to come to a decision on a mailing list that is populated mostly with developers. Seems you've volunteered for the job! Please let us know when you have some data to share with the rest of the group. In the meantime, please don't tell people that they can't share their professional opinions and experiences with the limitations and problems of old-fashioned shared hosting and the promises of modern VPS-based hosting. That's valuable input, too. Brion, I appreciate your and others input, and am sure the same is true for Mark. One the one side it would be convenient to not support a certain group of users, on the other this means we no longer support that group of users. It is quite clear there are people that simply do not care about supporting these users, and thus prefer dropping the support, and people that want to retain this support. I'm not using any shared hosting and am not really a user of MW to begin with, so it does not matter all that much to me personally. However as an involved developer I think we should not ignore the arguments on either side. Seems you've volunteered for the job! Please let us know when you have some data to share with the rest of the group. If the proposal here is to no longer support these users, then it seems logical to make analysis of the impact of such a change a requirement for the change to happen. Making it a requirement for the change to not happen is obviously appealing to people on one side of the argument and definitely not to those on the other. Ignoring preference there, it seems to not be the most logical approach. Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw http://www.bn2vs.com Don't panic. Don't be evil. ~=[,,_,,]:3 -- ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 10/01/2013 09:46 AM, Christopher Wilson wrote: I'm usually just an observer on these lists, but I'll weigh in as a user who runs MediaWiki on a shared host. The host *is* a VPS, but our wiki is used by the environmental department of a large international non-profit. As such it lives on the enviro server along with some WordPress sites and other minor things. If we have to give the wiki its own dedicated VPS, I see no reason why the wiki would need its own VPS. What really matters is the ability to install and run software, which is normally the case in a VPS. Gabriel ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Christopher Wilson gwsuper...@gmail.comwrote: I'm usually just an observer on these lists, but I'll weigh in as a user who runs MediaWiki on a shared host. The host *is* a VPS, but our wiki is used by the environmental department of a large international non-profit. As such it lives on the enviro server along with some WordPress sites and other minor things. If we have to give the wiki its own dedicated VPS, it will likely not survive, or we will move to another platform. I see some REALLY low costs for VPSes being tossed around here, but honestly, we'd probably be looking at a minimum of $50/month to give the site its own dedicated VPS. I realize that in the grand scheme of things, that's not a huge cost, but at that point, management will probably insist on making the site pay for itself rather than the current situation of letting it exist on shared resources. We aren't discussing dropping support for running MediaWiki along with other applications, but we're discussing dropping support for shared hosting services, which run hundreds of applications on the same host as different customers. It's horribly insecure and doesn't allow the user to install anything at the system-level. - Ryan ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Gabriel Wicke gwi...@wikimedia.org wrote: With VPS prices starting in the $2-$5 a month range [1][2][3][4] there are not many reasons left for using less secure and less predictable shared hosting. People have been migrating away from shared hosting for a while, and this trend is set to continue in the future. Sadly, most VPS'es are less secure, because big hosting companies patch their shared hosting environment, but most users don't setup any patching on their vps. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] RFC: TitleValue
[Re-posting, since my original post apparently never got through. Maybe I posted from the wrong email account.] Hi all! As discussed at the MediaWiki Architecture session at Wikimania, I have created an RFC for the TitleValue class, which could be used to replace the heavy-weight Title class in many places. The idea is to show case the advantages (and difficulties) of using true value objects as opposed to active records. The idea being that hair should not know how to cut itself. You can find the proposal here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/TitleValue Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. -- daniel PS: I have included the some parts of the proposal below, to give a quick impression. -- == Motivation == The old Title class is huge and has many dependencies. It relies on global state for things like namespace resolution and permission checks. It requires a database connection for caching. This makes it hard to use Title objects in a different context, such as unit tests. Which in turn makes it quite difficult to write any clean unit tests (not using any global state) for MediaWiki since Title objects are required as parameters by many classes. In a more fundamental sense, the fact that Title has so many dependencies, and everything that uses a Title object inherits all of these dependencies, means that the MediaWiki codebase as a whole has highly tangled dependencies, and it is very hard to use individual classes separately. Instead of trying to refactor and redefine the Title class, this proposal suggest to introduce an alternative class that can be used instead of Title object to represent the title of a wiki page. The implementation of the old Title class should be changed to rely on the new code where possible, but its interface and behavior should not change. == Architecture == The proposed architecture consists of three parts, initially: # The TitleValue class itself. As a value object, this has no knowledge about namespaces, permissions, etc. It does not support normalization either, since that would require knowledge about the local configuration. # A TitleParser service that has configuration knowledge about namespaces and normalization rules. Any class that needs to turn a string into a TitleValue should require a TitleParser service as a constructor argument (dependency injection). Should that not be possible, a TitleParser can be obtained from a global registry. # A TitleFormatter service that has configuration knowledge about namespaces and normalization rules. Any class that needs to turn a TitleValue into a string should require a TitleFormatter service as a constructor argument (dependency injection). Should that not be possible, a TitleFormatter can be obtained from a global registry. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
Has anybody ever considered the possibility that maybe people don't know (or want to know) how to set up a caching proxy? One of the nice things about MediaWiki is that it's extraordinarily easy to set up. All you have to do is dump a tar.gz file into a directory, run the web installer and call it a day. No sysadmin experience required. The file cache allows simple and easy caching for wiki administrators who aren't system administrators and just want their site to be more performant without having to learn how to configure their web server as well as an additional caching daemon. Also, like Mark mentioned, I'd like to see some statistics on how many people use shared hosting for MediaWiki before dropping support for them out of principle. *-- * *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 Major in Computer Science On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Chris Steipp cste...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Gabriel Wicke gwi...@wikimedia.org wrote: With VPS prices starting in the $2-$5 a month range [1][2][3][4] there are not many reasons left for using less secure and less predictable shared hosting. People have been migrating away from shared hosting for a while, and this trend is set to continue in the future. Sadly, most VPS'es are less secure, because big hosting companies patch their shared hosting environment, but most users don't setup any patching on their vps. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 2013-10-01 2:18 PM, Chris Steipp cste...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Gabriel Wicke gwi...@wikimedia.org wrote: With VPS prices starting in the $2-$5 a month range [1][2][3][4] there are not many reasons left for using less secure and less predictable shared hosting. People have been migrating away from shared hosting for a while, and this trend is set to continue in the future. Sadly, most VPS'es are less secure, because big hosting companies patch their shared hosting environment, but most users don't setup any patching on their vps. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l Vps isn't the only reason people might want to use file cache. The person may just not be very experianced, and actually setting up squid could be beyond them. I don't think large amount of foundation resources should be spent on features like file cache. However I still think it should be allowed to exist provided it doesn't cause problems. As far as I can tell, no one has pointed to an active problem its causing other than the feature isn't perfect. -bawolff ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
Question for the group: Would an officially supported general-purpose MediaWiki hosting service be useful to people who would like to run wikis, but don't have the time, expertise, or resources to maintain their own installation? If so, what can we (as interested parties in MediaWiki development and use) do to make this happen? [Please do not consider the existence of this email to imply that only regular posters on wikitech-l are allowed to read, comment on, or give opinions in this matter -- on the contrary, wider input is being requested. Please forward this question to anyone to whom it may be of interest. If you would like to get more input from other people, please feel free to contact them on your own, with or without a forward of this mail, and to make follow-up posts or comments as you need or want to. Please feel free to modify the question, the idea, the proposal, or make comments or additions. Be bold and get involved!] -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Fwd: Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
+ mediawiki-l Original Message Subject:Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service? Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:11:16 -0700 From: Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia-tech list wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical Question for the group: Would an officially supported general-purpose MediaWiki hosting service be useful to people who would like to run wikis, but don't have the time, expertise, or resources to maintain their own installation? If so, what can we (as interested parties in MediaWiki development and use) do to make this happen? [Please do not consider the existence of this email to imply that only regular posters on wikitech-l are allowed to read, comment on, or give opinions in this matter -- on the contrary, wider input is being requested. Please forward this question to anyone to whom it may be of interest. If you would like to get more input from other people, please feel free to contact them on your own, with or without a forward of this mail, and to make follow-up posts or comments as you need or want to. Please feel free to modify the question, the idea, the proposal, or make comments or additions. Be bold and get involved!] -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
I think Brion should have expressed some distinction between Wiki services (like Wikia), and hosting services that provide everything for MediaWiki to run smoothly, incl. caching software and other fancy stuff. On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Something other than Wikia, then? - Original Message - From: Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia-tech list wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 2:11:16 PM Subject: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service? Question for the group: Would an officially supported general-purpose MediaWiki hosting service be useful to people who would like to run wikis, but don't have the time, expertise, or resources to maintain their own installation? If so, what can we (as interested parties in MediaWiki development and use) do to make this happen? [Please do not consider the existence of this email to imply that only regular posters on wikitech-l are allowed to read, comment on, or give opinions in this matter -- on the contrary, wider input is being requested. Please forward this question to anyone to whom it may be of interest. If you would like to get more input from other people, please feel free to contact them on your own, with or without a forward of this mail, and to make follow-up posts or comments as you need or want to. Please feel free to modify the question, the idea, the proposal, or make comments or additions. Be bold and get involved!] -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l -- З павагай, Павел Селіцкас/Pavel Selitskas Wizardist @ Wikimedia projects ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
On 2013-10-01 3:11 PM, Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org wrote: Question for the group: Would an officially supported general-purpose MediaWiki hosting service be useful to people who would like to run wikis, but don't have the time, expertise, or resources to maintain their own installation? If so, what can we (as interested parties in MediaWiki development and use) do to make this happen? [Please do not consider the existence of this email to imply that only regular posters on wikitech-l are allowed to read, comment on, or give opinions in this matter -- on the contrary, wider input is being requested. Please forward this question to anyone to whom it may be of interest. If you would like to get more input from other people, please feel free to contact them on your own, with or without a forward of this mail, and to make follow-up posts or comments as you need or want to. Please feel free to modify the question, the idea, the proposal, or make comments or additions. Be bold and get involved!] -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l I know this is not your question - but officially supported by whom? I would consider this massively out of scope for the wmf unless it was using revenue from this service to subsidize wikipedia. Even then it seems somewhat questionable, politically. Ignoring the politics of such a move, I think it would be cool. -bawolff ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote: Has anybody ever considered the possibility that maybe people don't know (or want to know) how to set up a caching proxy? One of the nice things about MediaWiki is that it's extraordinarily easy to set up. All you have to do is dump a tar.gz file into a directory, run the web installer and call it a day. No sysadmin experience required. This is only true if you want almost no functionality of out MediaWiki and you want it to be very slow. MediaWiki is incredibly difficult to properly run and requires at least some minor sysadmin experience to do so. There's a reason that almost every MediaWiki install in existence is completely out of date. When we get to Wordpress's ease of use, then we can assume this. - Ryan ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Something other than Wikia, then? On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Paul Selitskas p.selits...@gmail.comwrote: I think Brion should have expressed some distinction between Wiki services (like Wikia), and hosting services that provide everything for MediaWiki to run smoothly, incl. caching software and other fancy stuff. Ideally, my vision of a general-purpose wiki hosting service would provide options that orgs like Wikia generally don't. Wikia for instance covers fan encyclopedia type projects very well -- open access, openish license, free ad-supported hosting, casual user ownership with public backups. I'm thinking more along the lines of covering some of those folks who right now are setting up quick ad-hoc installs on their own servers or shared hosting, and then possibly not maintaining the software for years because they have better things to do than figure out how to update and tweak the software. (Right now I have the impression many of those folks have everything work great until it does eventually break or needs an update...) * ability to disable ads for a reasonable cost (or perhaps waived for certain approved projects) * ability to customize your skin! * ability to control or restrict access (limited access, custom auth integration, etc) * ability to host on your own domain * ability to host on SSL * ability to write, install and run custom extensions * custom writing, testing, and maintenance of custom extensions * service tracking down and fixing bugs * etc This might mean customers span a range of actual hosting methods, from generic wiki on a farm-style cluster (like Wikimedia and Wikia's primary wiki hosting) to you pay for a dedicated VPS mini-cluster for your custom code to we run dedicated servers for your expensive custom site, perhaps all the way to we provide consulting and support to help with your own server setup. There are some folks doing contracting/services and hosting on smaller scales, but we don't really have good coordination or a end-user-facing place we can point people for comprehensive support. Perhaps we just need to coordinate the people doing support and hosting already, or perhaps we should consider organizing something either under, or separately from, WMF... I'm not going to make any specific demands at this point, I've just been itching to see something happen on this front for years. :) -- brion - Original Message - From: Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia-tech list wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 2:11:16 PM Subject: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service? Question for the group: Would an officially supported general-purpose MediaWiki hosting service be useful to people who would like to run wikis, but don't have the time, expertise, or resources to maintain their own installation? If so, what can we (as interested parties in MediaWiki development and use) do to make this happen? [Please do not consider the existence of this email to imply that only regular posters on wikitech-l are allowed to read, comment on, or give opinions in this matter -- on the contrary, wider input is being requested. Please forward this question to anyone to whom it may be of interest. If you would like to get more input from other people, please feel free to contact them on your own, with or without a forward of this mail, and to make follow-up posts or comments as you need or want to. Please feel free to modify the question, the idea, the proposal, or make comments or additions. Be bold and get involved!] -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l -- З павагай, Павел Селіцкас/Pavel Selitskas Wizardist @ Wikimedia projects ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote: This is only true if you want almost no functionality of out MediaWiki and you want it to be very slow. MediaWiki is incredibly difficult to properly run and requires at least some minor sysadmin experience to do so. There's a reason that almost every MediaWiki install in existence is completely out of date. Do you have some specific examples? Also, if that's the case then removing file caching would be a step backwards. *-- * *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 Major in Computer Science ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
Hey, This is only true if you want almost no functionality of out MediaWiki and you want it to be very slow. There are quite a few people running MW without a cache or other magic config and find it quite suitable for their needs, which can be quite non-trivial. MediaWiki is incredibly difficult to properly run and requires at least some minor sysadmin experience to do so. There's a reason that almost every MediaWiki install in existence is completely out of date. So because MediaWiki already sucks in some regards, its fine to have it suck more in others as well? Is that really the point made here? Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw http://www.bn2vs.com Don't panic. Don't be evil. ~=[,,_,,]:3 -- ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 2013-10-01 3:46 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote: Has anybody ever considered the possibility that maybe people don't know (or want to know) how to set up a caching proxy? One of the nice things about MediaWiki is that it's extraordinarily easy to set up. All you have to do is dump a tar.gz file into a directory, run the web installer and call it a day. No sysadmin experience required. This is only true if you want almost no functionality of out MediaWiki and you want it to be very slow. MediaWiki is incredibly difficult to properly run and requires at least some minor sysadmin experience to do so. There's a reason that almost every MediaWiki install in existence is completely out of date. When we get to Wordpress's ease of use, then we can assume this. - Ryan ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l I disagree. For a low traffic site, its probably performant enough with just APC caching, which the installer sets up for you. Vanilla mediawiki does the things you expect a wiki to do. I doubt these types of users want/need complex things like abuse filter and lua. (Unless you are copying templates from wikipedia) The major thing out of the box mw is missing is confirm edit. The other stuff is cool but non-essential imo. -bawolff ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
On 2013-10-01 11:43 AM, Brian Wolff wrote: I know this is not your question - but officially supported by whom? I would consider this massively out of scope for the wmf unless it was using revenue from this service to subsidize wikipedia. Even then it seems somewhat questionable, politically. Ignoring the politics of such a move, I think it would be cool. -bawolff There's always the generic idea of MediaWiki Foundation[1] we've been discussing or the MediaWiki Development Chapter[2] focused iteration on that idea I never completed the page for. The scope could easily be expanded to also support hosting. And it would be a beautiful place to do it in. Besides just donations, make some profit from hosting MediaWiki installations, and then use that profit to pay more former volunteers to squash bugs and make random features and improvements to MediaWiki full-time. [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/MediaWiki_Foundation [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Dantman/MediaWiki_Development_Chapter ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/] ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote: I know this is not your question - but officially supported by whom? I would consider this massively out of scope for the wmf unless it was using revenue from this service to subsidize wikipedia. Even then it seems somewhat questionable, politically. Excellent question: I'd say the key officialness markers of a hosting/support organization would be: * the org has permission to use the MediaWiki name/logo/domains (need agreement with WMF?) * MediaWiki documentation endorses the organization doing the hosting/support (need general consensus with the developers, many but not all of whom are WMF employees) I'd expect conditions of such would tend to include: * the org invests its time, money, and people back into MediaWiki development The actual organization could (maybe should?) be distinct from WMF; whether it could be a wholly-owned subsidiary like Mozilla's Mozilla Corporation, or a separate mini-company like our MediaWiki release management team, or something else is something I feel needs a lot more input. -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
Question for the group: Would an officially supported general-purpose MediaWiki hosting service be useful to people who would like to run wikis, but don't have the time, expertise, or resources to maintain their own installation? If so, what can we (as interested parties in MediaWiki development and use) do to make this happen? [Please do not consider the existence of this email to imply that only regular posters on wikitech-l are allowed to read, comment on, or give opinions in this matter -- on the contrary, wider input is being requested. Please forward this question to anyone to whom it may be of interest. If you would like to get more input from other people, please feel free to contact them on your own, with or without a forward of this mail, and to make follow-up posts or comments as you need or want to. Please feel free to modify the question, the idea, the proposal, or make comments or additions. Be bold and get involved!] -- brion Absolutely. I'm trying to run Wikinfo.co on a host that doesn't have up to date infrastructure, I may succeed yet, but trying to get Lua to work involves heroics I despise (software is not fun for me, even if it is to you). I suspect most of these VPS's are similar, packages of rather old software that work but can't be easily updated or modified. I can run the inside of a wiki, but begging for support, or paying for it, or trying to update installations that were not meant to be updated could be avoided by a host that was built with the latest versions and features of MediaWiki supported. For a minor example Tidy could come installed. People from this group could even anticipate requirements of future versions. Fred ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
Le 01/10/13 20:43, Brian Wolff a écrit : I know this is not your question - but officially supported by whom? I would consider this massively out of scope for the wmf unless it was using revenue from this service to subsidize wikipedia. Even then it seems somewhat questionable, politically. You are a step ahead in the discussion. Brion is merely asking if there is any interest. Figuring whom would be the next step. -- Antoine hashar Musso ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
the org has permission to use the MediaWiki name/logo/domains Name and Logo sure -- but why domains? This shouldn't be an exclusive thing; we should not be moving towards having only one shop offering this service. Maybe the WMF could have some sort of 'partners' program that handled licensing. MediaWiki documentation endorses the organization doing the hosting/support (need general consensus with the developers, many but not all of whom are WMF employees) I don't think I can express how much I loathe organizations that do this. Varnish and Adiscon (rsyslog) are two offenders that come to mind. It seems to create an ecosystem where a new user assumes they must use the hosting provider for an install. And/or that any new features the vendor develops can be locked away and never documented except very sketchily in code. I don't mind having a page on mediawiki.org that would say something along the lines of 'if you dont want to host yourself...' but otherwise I feel the documentation / main site should be kept as neutral as possible. ~Matt Walker Wikimedia Foundation Fundraising Technology Team On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote: I know this is not your question - but officially supported by whom? I would consider this massively out of scope for the wmf unless it was using revenue from this service to subsidize wikipedia. Even then it seems somewhat questionable, politically. Excellent question: I'd say the key officialness markers of a hosting/support organization would be: * the org has permission to use the MediaWiki name/logo/domains (need agreement with WMF?) * MediaWiki documentation endorses the organization doing the hosting/support (need general consensus with the developers, many but not all of whom are WMF employees) I'd expect conditions of such would tend to include: * the org invests its time, money, and people back into MediaWiki development The actual organization could (maybe should?) be distinct from WMF; whether it could be a wholly-owned subsidiary like Mozilla's Mozilla Corporation, or a separate mini-company like our MediaWiki release management team, or something else is something I feel needs a lot more input. -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
quote name=Matthew Walker date=2013-10-01 time=12:32:08 -0700 the org has permission to use the MediaWiki name/logo/domains Name and Logo sure -- but why domains? This shouldn't be an exclusive thing; we should not be moving towards having only one shop offering this service. Maybe the WMF could have some sort of 'partners' program that handled licensing. only if domain includes the trademark, of course. MediaWiki documentation endorses the organization doing the hosting/support (need general consensus with the developers, many but not all of whom are WMF employees) I don't think I can express how much I loathe organizations that do this. Varnish and Adiscon (rsyslog) are two offenders that come to mind. It seems to create an ecosystem where a new user assumes they must use the hosting provider for an install. And/or that any new features the vendor develops can be locked away and never documented except very sketchily in code. I don't mind having a page on mediawiki.org that would say something along the lines of 'if you dont want to host yourself...' but otherwise I feel the documentation / main site should be kept as neutral as possible. I wanted to chime in here: The idea that Brion expressed, I believe, is what we were going for with the public RFP for the MW Release Management work. It showed community support and something to point at (by anyone) if a weird decision was made (or interpreted as such). So, maybe the default install doc shouldn't say Step 1: Create account at $Prefered_Vendor but we can definitely have known good vendors listed somewhere... (just my personal opinion, not that my professional one should be taken as anymore more than that either, really) Greg -- | Greg GrossmeierGPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @gregA18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D | ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
On 10/01/2013 11:11 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: Question for the group: Would an officially supported general-purpose MediaWiki hosting service be useful to people who would like to run wikis, but don't have the time, expertise, or resources to maintain their own installation? If so, what can we (as interested parties in MediaWiki development and use) do to make this happen? I'd say agree the best approach first with folks like https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Hosting_services There are many small companies trying to make a living out of (among other things) MediaWiki hosting and expertise. If we are missing players more involved with the community then we could start knocking those doors rather than triying to build an own house and call it official. PS: I'm maintaining my own instance at gandi.net simple hosting and surely I would like to have a specialized host not billing me as a company. They would have latest stable MediaWiki available + a bunch of tested extensions. I should only take care of my LocalSettings.php and whatever unsupported extensions I decide to have). -- Quim Gil Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
So, maybe the default install doc shouldn't say Step 1: Create account at $Prefered_Vendor but we can definitely have known good vendors listed somewhere... Greg Yes, hosts give very little information up front. You have to try them out to find out what software they have installed. The money is nothing, but spending days trying to make crap work is much more of a loss. I'd like the name of a few hosts where Lua can be make to work without a big struggle. Fred ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Greg Grossmeier g...@wikimedia.org wrote: The idea that Brion expressed, I believe, is what we were going for with the public RFP for the MW Release Management work. It showed community support and something to point at (by anyone) if a weird decision was made (or interpreted as such). Yes -- by no means am I recommending that I or WMF simply crown a preferred vendor by fiat! We would definitely want to go through a similar process; in fact that RFP was one of the things that inspired me to start thinking about hosting support needs over the summer. So, maybe the default install doc shouldn't say Step 1: Create account at $Prefered_Vendor but we can definitely have known good vendors listed somewhere... Yes; we certainly shouldn't discourage self-hosting or other hosting. What I mainly want us to accomplish is to make sure that end-users have a safe, up-to-date, fast path to setting up their own wiki, with the support they'll need to grow it or move it to self-hosting when they need it. This is more about the how (what we can accomplish for our users) than about who provides the services. That could just as easily be a group of recommended hosting services and a confederation of independent consultants rather than a standalone company. -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 1 October 2013 20:01, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote: I disagree. For a low traffic site, its probably performant enough with just APC caching, which the installer sets up for you. Vanilla mediawiki does the things you expect a wiki to do. I doubt these types of users want/need complex things like abuse filter and lua. (Unless you are copying templates from wikipedia) The major thing out of the box mw is missing is confirm edit. The other stuff is cool but non-essential imo. For my use on intranets, the thing I'm desperate for is a usable visual editor. (Testing and reporting bugs on VE as fast as I can ...) - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 10/01/2013 11:11 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: Question for the group: Would an officially supported general-purpose MediaWiki hosting service be useful to people who would like to run wikis, but don't have the time, expertise, or resources to maintain their own installation? If so, what can we (as interested parties in MediaWiki development and use) do to make this happen? I'd say agree the best approach first with folks like https://www.mediawiki.org/**wiki/Hosting_serviceshttps://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Hosting_services There are many small companies trying to make a living out of (among other things) MediaWiki hosting and expertise. If we are missing players more involved with the community then we could start knocking those doors rather than triying to build an own house and call it official. Can I just say: they're all dinky and antiquated and none of them come close to offering the kind of deployment and configuration experience that I expect a modern platform to have. I don't like this every time you have a new idea, God kills a Community member approach. It'd be more productive to think about the role the Foundation could play in ensuring that MediaWiki exposes the right set of interfaces for deep integration with configuration management and cloud provisioning platforms, and ensuring that these interfaces are intuitive and well-documented. This might actually spur some innovation. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
I disagree. For a low traffic site, its probably performant enough with just APC caching, which the installer sets up for you. Vanilla mediawiki does the things you expect a wiki to do. I doubt these types of users want/need complex things like abuse filter and lua. (Unless you are copying templates from wikipedia) The major thing out of the box mw is missing is confirm edit. The other stuff is cool but non-essential imo. Just want to throw in my hat here as well. I use Mediawiki on my personal website, my laptop, and my place of business. In each case it fulfils a different role. In the case of my laptop, I don't need caching it just acts a good place to take notes on a variety of projects that I working on. I went with it because I was used to how it worked from editing Wikipedia and it was easy to set up. My laptop runs Windows with a copy of Apache and PHP installed on it for development work. On my personal website I have a wiki that requires an account to edit with account creation disabled. I don’t use caching their either, but if my site got more traffic I would. In this case I installed Mediawiki in order to be able to quickly create pages of text for documentation or when translating news articles for people for political advocacy. On my personal website Mediawiki is set up on a shared host with all of the disadvantages that come with such a setup. At my work we use Mediawiki as a knowledge base and to document standard operating procedures. Here Mediawiki was chosen for its ease of use for an end user and the audit trail that articles inherently leave. It was a bonus that I have experience writing Mediawiki extensions as well. Here we run it on a dedicated web server running Ubuntu Server Edition that I have root on. Anyhow, I guess I didn't really make what I'm trying to say here terribly clear. Lots of people use Mediawiki for a lot of different reasons in a lot of different enviornments. I can't easily set up many of the items that are used by the WMF on my Windows laptop, nor on my shared hosting account. Personally in those situations I would enjoy Mediawiki to still work reasonably well. By all means drop the file cache if no one really uses it, but I personally would be against dropping support for people who are in shared hosting environments or other environment that don't match up with the typical VPS or dedicated server. Thank you, Derric Atzrott ...now back to lurking. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
MediaWiki exposes the right set of interfaces for deep integration with configuration management and cloud provisioning platforms, and ensuring that these interfaces are intuitive and well-documented. Not well documented yet; but I'll put in a shameless plug that I have a patch [1] that will expose the git treeish information of extensions via the API if anyone wants to review :D [1] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/65299/ ~Matt Walker Wikimedia Foundation Fundraising Technology Team On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Ori Livneh o...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 10/01/2013 11:11 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: Question for the group: Would an officially supported general-purpose MediaWiki hosting service be useful to people who would like to run wikis, but don't have the time, expertise, or resources to maintain their own installation? If so, what can we (as interested parties in MediaWiki development and use) do to make this happen? I'd say agree the best approach first with folks like https://www.mediawiki.org/**wiki/Hosting_services https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Hosting_services There are many small companies trying to make a living out of (among other things) MediaWiki hosting and expertise. If we are missing players more involved with the community then we could start knocking those doors rather than triying to build an own house and call it official. Can I just say: they're all dinky and antiquated and none of them come close to offering the kind of deployment and configuration experience that I expect a modern platform to have. I don't like this every time you have a new idea, God kills a Community member approach. It'd be more productive to think about the role the Foundation could play in ensuring that MediaWiki exposes the right set of interfaces for deep integration with configuration management and cloud provisioning platforms, and ensuring that these interfaces are intuitive and well-documented. This might actually spur some innovation. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote: This is only true if you want almost no functionality of out MediaWiki and you want it to be very slow. MediaWiki is incredibly difficult to properly run and requires at least some minor sysadmin experience to do so. There's a reason that almost every MediaWiki install in existence is completely out of date. Do you have some specific examples? Extension management, upgrades, proper backend caching, proper localization cache, proper job running, running any maintenance script, using a *lot* of different extensions, etc. etc.. Also, if that's the case then removing file caching would be a step backwards. Pretending that we support the lowest common denominator while not actually doing it is the worst of all worlds. We should either support shared hosts excellently, which is very difficult, or we should just stop acting like we support them. I'm not saying we should make the software unusable for shared hosts, but we also shouldn't worry about supporting them for new features or maintaining often broken features (like file cache) just because they are useful on shared hosting. It makes the software needlessly complex for a dying concept. - Ryan ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.comwrote: Hey, This is only true if you want almost no functionality of out MediaWiki and you want it to be very slow. There are quite a few people running MW without a cache or other magic config and find it quite suitable for their needs, which can be quite non-trivial. MediaWiki is incredibly difficult to properly run and requires at least some minor sysadmin experience to do so. There's a reason that almost every MediaWiki install in existence is completely out of date. So because MediaWiki already sucks in some regards, its fine to have it suck more in others as well? Is that really the point made here? I'm actually arguing that we should prioritize fixing the things that suck for everyone over the things that suck for shared hosts. We should especially not harm the large infrastructures just so that we can support the barely usable ones. If we keep supporting shared hosts we likely can't break portions of MediaWiki into services without a lot of duplication of code and effort (and bugs!). - Ryan ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Ori Livneh o...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 10/01/2013 11:11 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: Question for the group: Would an officially supported general-purpose MediaWiki hosting service be useful to people who would like to run wikis, but don't have the time, expertise, or resources to maintain their own installation? If so, what can we (as interested parties in MediaWiki development and use) do to make this happen? I'd say agree the best approach first with folks like https://www.mediawiki.org/**wiki/Hosting_serviceshttps://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Hosting_services There are many small companies trying to make a living out of (among other things) MediaWiki hosting and expertise. If we are missing players more involved with the community then we could start knocking those doors rather than triying to build an own house and call it official. Can I just say: they're all dinky and antiquated and none of them come close to offering the kind of deployment and configuration experience that I expect a modern platform to have. I don't like this every time you have a new idea, God kills a Community member approach. It'd be more productive to think about the role the Foundation could play in ensuring that MediaWiki exposes the right set of interfaces for deep integration with configuration management and cloud provisioning platforms, and ensuring that these interfaces are intuitive and well-documented. This might actually spur some innovation. Other ideas for community engagement: * Find out what version of MediaWiki each of these hosts is offering and nag the ones that lag behind to upgrade. * Find out which extensions (and which versions) each host is offering and lobby for the inclusion of new extensions. * Find out whether the management interface provided by the host describes MediaWiki in a manner that is compelling and accurate, and which concisely articulates MediaWiki's positioning relative to other wiki and content-management systems. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote: I'm actually arguing that we should prioritize fixing the things that suck for everyone over the things that suck for shared hosts. We should especially not harm the large infrastructures just so that we can support the barely usable ones. If we keep supporting shared hosts we likely can't break portions of MediaWiki into services without a lot of duplication of code and effort (and bugs!). But that's not the question at hand. I agree that fixing more important features should be prioritized, but the problem is that Antoine suggested earlier in this thread that file caching be removed completely. *-- * *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 Major in Computer Science ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [wikimedia #5841] etherpad.wikimedia.org downtime due to upgrade
0. Thanks for the upgrade! 1. It's pleasant to see that the Wikimedia Foundation is mentioned at http://etherpad.org/ as an early adopter of Etherpad Lite that have contributed to various aspects of bug discovery and resolution. 2. Here's another bug I discovered thanks to this upgrade: https://github.com/ether/etherpad-lite/issues/1916 . -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore 2013/9/30 Alexandros Kosiaris akosia...@wikimedia.org FYI, -- Forwarded message -- From: core-...@rt.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 2:12 PM Subject: Fwd: [wikimedia #5841] etherpad.wikimedia.org downtime due to upgrade etherpad-lite has been successfully update to version 1.2.11. The upgrade procedure server-wise was uneventfull, however it will cause some minor problems to existing users of the service. Specifically CSS/JS elements of the page have changed and need to be re-downloaded by the browser, however due to browser caching this does not happen automatically. Users of the old version will have to FORCE REFRESH their browser when accessing the service for the first time. Otherwise they will get garbled versions of the user interface. Pad contents will be intact, however a brief message suggesting the user does not have permission to access a pad might show up. That message is inaccurate and is a by-product of the garbled UI. -- Alexandros Kosiaris akosia...@wikimedia.org ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:13 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: That would be lovely! So that stuff will be stable and present for the next LTS, as is likely to be used for Debian's package? I know you're trolling, but: presumably wikimedia would start by maintaining their own apt repository. Integration with upstream release cycles would be the responsibility of upstream. --scott ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 1 October 2013 22:34, C. Scott Ananian canan...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:13 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: That would be lovely! So that stuff will be stable and present for the next LTS, as is likely to be used for Debian's package? I know you're trolling, but: presumably wikimedia would start by maintaining their own apt repository. Integration with upstream release cycles would be the responsibility of upstream. Well, I wasn't actually. A mediawiki.org PPA is an idea that sounds utterly wonderful and bypasses the Debian packaging effort completely, which does seem quite worth it. - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Summary of GSoC project Improving support for book structures
Hi all. I just wrapped up my three-month-long Summer of Code project, Improving support for book structures.[1][2] I worked to create an extension, BookManagerv2, that will allow wikis to store metadata and structural information about books. This information is entered using a form, and stored in a JSON block. This block is then used to create navigation bars for the section pages, and will ideally be used in the future to allow things like one-click actions on entire books. The extension is not complete, as it has a number of remaining bugs that must be solved before it can go to security review.[3] That said, I hope to close these up soon. My wrap-up blog post has some more information, if you're interested.[4] Thanks so much for all of the support—my mentors and the MediaWiki and other Wikimedia communities have been instrumental in the work I've accomplished. [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare/Proposal [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Book_management [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Book_management/Bug_priority [4] http://www.mollywhite.net/blog/?p=104 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
Wikia is dinky? ShoutWiki is antiquated? I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point, but please don't generalise like this; an innacurate statement like that just takes away from it. On 01/10/13 21:34, Ori Livneh wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 10/01/2013 11:11 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: Question for the group: Would an officially supported general-purpose MediaWiki hosting service be useful to people who would like to run wikis, but don't have the time, expertise, or resources to maintain their own installation? If so, what can we (as interested parties in MediaWiki development and use) do to make this happen? I'd say agree the best approach first with folks like https://www.mediawiki.org/**wiki/Hosting_serviceshttps://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Hosting_services There are many small companies trying to make a living out of (among other things) MediaWiki hosting and expertise. If we are missing players more involved with the community then we could start knocking those doors rather than triying to build an own house and call it official. Can I just say: they're all dinky and antiquated and none of them come close to offering the kind of deployment and configuration experience that I expect a modern platform to have. I don't like this every time you have a new idea, God kills a Community member approach. It'd be more productive to think about the role the Foundation could play in ensuring that MediaWiki exposes the right set of interfaces for deep integration with configuration management and cloud provisioning platforms, and ensuring that these interfaces are intuitive and well-documented. This might actually spur some innovation. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
quote name=David Gerard date=2013-10-01 time=22:51:46 +0100 Well, I wasn't actually. A mediawiki.org PPA is an idea that sounds utterly wonderful and bypasses the Debian packaging effort completely, which does seem quite worth it. OFFTOPIC: now if only Launchpad would support building packages against Debian... :( https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/188564 Given that LP is in 'maintenance mode' and that's a low priority bug... -- | Greg GrossmeierGPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @gregA18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D | ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 10/01/2013 02:51 PM, David Gerard wrote: On 1 October 2013 22:34, C. Scott Ananian canan...@wikimedia.org wrote: I know you're trolling, but: presumably wikimedia would start by maintaining their own apt repository. http://apt.wikimedia.org/ A mediawiki.org PPA is an idea that sounds utterly wonderful and bypasses the Debian packaging effort completely, which does seem quite worth it. We have a group of potential Debian packagers (and a few who actually know what they are doing) here at the foundation, and we discussed this during the all-staff a few weeks ago. The will is there, we just need to make it happen. Gabriel PS: Parsoid packaging is tracked at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53723 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 02/10/13 01:19, Mark A. Hershberger wrote: More than anything, I would like some real data from non-WMF users of MW. Wikitech-l isn't the right place to get that data, so I want to avoid giving the idea that the decision to drop support for shared hosting has been made. You could have the installer send environment details to mediawiki.org for aggregation. -- Tim Starling ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: Wikia is dinky? ShoutWiki is antiquated? I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point, but please don't generalise like this; an innacurate statement like that just takes away from it. Ok, fair point. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 01/10/13 17:57, Jeroen De Dauw wrote: Hey, The standard practice is not to split the cache but to use protocol-relative urls. This wiki is running MediaWiki 1.21.2 with the Vector skin. The resources with protocol specific URLs are resource loader modules. Does that mean I have to modify the Vector skin? I hope not. No, just set $wgServer to the protocol-relative URL (e.g. //wiki.example.com) and set $wgCanonicalServer to the protocol-specific URL (e.g. https://wiki.example.com). This is how we do it at WMF. I have tested this setup just now with the HTML file cache, and it works just fine. On 01/10/13 18:07, Daniel Friesen wrote: Oh right, the file cache works that way. That's probably a bug we'll have to fix. Most sites with HTTPS are more likely using a real front end cache rather than the file cache. You are incorrect. There is no bug. Honestly, I don't think I have ever seen a flame war started for such a stupid reason. -- Tim Starling ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 01/10/13 21:44, Antoine Musso wrote: Le 01/10/13 09:45, Jeroen De Dauw a écrit : I have a wiki that is accessible both via HTTP and HTTPS which has the file cache enabled. When someone loads a page over HTTP and it gets cached, it will have HTTP resource URLs in it. When someone then loads it over HTTPS and gets this cached page, they'll end up with mixed content, which causes the resources to not be loaded on recent FF versions. Is there a way to split the cache based on protocol used? The file cache is barely maintained and I am not sure whether anyone is still relying on it. We should probably remove that feature entirely and instruct people to setup a real frontend cache instead. Many people use it and rely on it. It is as useful as it was when it was introduced. Many of the bugs in the original implementation have now been fixed. -- Tim Starling ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] IRC meeting for RFC review
On 24/09/13 07:30, Tim Starling wrote: How about we also schedule a meeting for 2 October, 06:00 UTC? So the first week will be US/Australia, and the second will be Europe/Australia. Reminder: this is happening in just over 6 hours from now. It will be on #mediawiki-rfc . -- Tim Starling ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
On 02/10/13 01:58, Aaron Schulz wrote: As the last person to maintain that code, I tend to agree with this. What problems did you find in the code? -- Tim Starling ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] File cache + HTTPS question
I lost track of this thread at about the second message, but could someone look into this reproducible bug which seems similar to the issue reported by the original poster? https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48133 Nemo ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Case Insensitive Database Lookups
I have an open bug in CentralNotice [1] where I have a search function by name for old content. Naively this happens as a LIKE query on the table's name column. Though this works, it fails at being case insensitive because the table, like most(all?) other tables on the WMF cluster, has by default binary charset/collation. Given that I want to support case insensitive searching; does anyone have any thoughts or examples on how to go about doing it in a binary table? The only solution I can think of would be to change the collation/charset of the table in question to utf8. Would that be a bad idea? I'm led to understand the binary default came about because older versions of MySQL did not support the full multilingual plane. But this might no longer be an issue with MariaDB 5.6? [1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53751 ~Matt Walker Wikimedia Foundation Fundraising Technology Team ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Case Insensitive Database Lookups
On 10/1/13, Matthew Walker mwal...@wikimedia.org wrote: I have an open bug in CentralNotice [1] where I have a search function by name for old content. Naively this happens as a LIKE query on the table's name column. Though this works, it fails at being case insensitive because the table, like most(all?) other tables on the WMF cluster, has by default binary charset/collation. Given that I want to support case insensitive searching; does anyone have any thoughts or examples on how to go about doing it in a binary table? The only solution I can think of would be to change the collation/charset of the table in question to utf8. Would that be a bad idea? I'm led to understand the binary default came about because older versions of MySQL did not support the full multilingual plane. But this might no longer be an issue with MariaDB 5.6? [1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53751 ~Matt Walker Wikimedia Foundation Fundraising Technology Team ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l The solution used in the past as far as I know was to have an additional column that was a lowercase version of the main column (For example TitleKey extension. The cl_sortkey field is also the same sort of principle, but with a more complex transformation of the original field) Additionally, I'm not sure why the character set matters. It would be the collation that would control this. (I believe. Not really up on the details of mysql charsets and collations) --bawolff ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Officially supported MediaWiki hosting service?
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Ori Livneh o...@wikimedia.org wrote: Foundation could play in ensuring that MediaWiki exposes the right set of interfaces for deep integration with configuration management and cloud provisioning platforms, and ensuring that these interfaces are intuitive and well-documented. This might actually spur some innovation. Puppet, chef, salt stack, cfengine, CloudFormation, OpenStack, etc? Hmm... THIS. Yes. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] IRC meeting for RFC review
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20131002T06 That's 2am EDT, 11pm PDT, etc. --scott ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
