As for legitimate users, probably the most useful thing to do would be
ensuring that the TorBlock extension shows an understandable error
message and sends people to a translatable page with instructions valid
for all language editions of our projects with current poliecies (most
projects will
Hello all,
To add to the great work by Ori and Jon, I have my own recent pet
project to announce: Reviewer-bot, which adds reviewers to any new
changes uploaded to Gerrit.
The basic idea is as follows:
1) reviewer-bot listens to Gerrit's events stream
2) a contributor uploads a new change
I'm not sure is that useful, because Gerrit can already notify you of new
changes for any project: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/settings/projects
What might be better is getting added as a reviewer when certain
files/directories are changed (especially in mediawiki/core)
Alex
On Fri, Dec
Hi,
Mozilla are asking for update about bug
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=758857
Can anybody help?
--
Amir
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com
Date: 2012/6/19
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] HTTPS Wikipedia search for Firefox?
To: Wikimedia
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Sumana Harihareswara
suma...@wikimedia.org wrote:
3) Look at Nymble - http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#oakland11-formalizing
and http://cgi.soic.indiana.edu/~kapadia/nymble/overview.php . It would
allow Wikimedia to distance itself from knowing people's
Στις 28-12-2012, ημέρα Παρ, και ώρα 10:38 -0500, ο/η Brad Jorsch έγραψε:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Sumana Harihareswara
suma...@wikimedia.org wrote:
3) Look at Nymble - http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#oakland11-formalizing
and http://cgi.soic.indiana.edu/~kapadia/nymble/overview.php .
Sorry, just missing a bit of background:
What are the main use cases for people willing to use Tor while editing
Wikimedia sites?
--
Quim Gil
Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
___
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Sumana Harihareswara suma...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
TL;DR: A few ideas follow on how we could possibly help legit editors
contribute from behind Tor proxies. I am just conversant enough with
the security problems to make unworkable suggestions ;-), so please
On 12/28/2012 11:14 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
Sorry, just missing a bit of background:
What are the main use cases for people willing to use Tor while editing
Wikimedia sites?
The big one, as I see it (quoting from https://www.torproject.org/ ):
Activists use Tor to anonymously report abuses from
On 28 December 2012 17:36, Sumana Harihareswara suma...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The big one, as I see it (quoting from https://www.torproject.org/ ):
Activists use Tor to anonymously report abuses from danger zones.
Whistleblowers use Tor to safely report on corruption. Iran, Burma,
and China
On 12/28/2012 12:39 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 28 December 2012 17:36, Sumana Harihareswara suma...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The big one, as I see it (quoting from https://www.torproject.org/ ):
Activists use Tor to anonymously report abuses from danger zones.
Whistleblowers use Tor to safely
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Hi,
Mozilla are asking for update about bug
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=758857
Can anybody help?
There's no change. We're still waiting on MediaWiki changes to occur before
we switch
On 12/27/2012 10:31 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
* What is the difference between +1 and +2, especially in Verified?
I think just how certain you are.
I still don't get it. I either think the code is good and should be
merged or it's not good enough and shouldn't be merged. I don't see any
On 12/27/2012 10:36 AM, Alex Monk wrote:
Only some people (project owners, gerrit admins, some WMF staff, etc.) can
give CodeReview+2 (approved), whereas everyone can give CodeReview+1. Only
people able to approve can mess with Verified I think...
But should we mess with Verified? Or should we
On 12/28/2012 12:43 PM, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
On 12/28/2012 12:39 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 28 December 2012 17:36, Sumana Harihareswara suma...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
The big one, as I see it (quoting from https://www.torproject.org/ ):
Activists use Tor to anonymously report abuses
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgon...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/27/2012 10:31 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
* What is the difference between +1 and +2, especially in Verified?
I think just how certain you are.
I still don't get it. I either think the code is good and
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgon...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/27/2012 10:36 AM, Alex Monk wrote:
Only some people (project owners, gerrit admins, some WMF staff, etc.) can
give CodeReview+2 (approved), whereas everyone can give CodeReview+1. Only
people able to approve
Alex Monk kren...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure is that useful, because Gerrit can already notify you of new
changes for any project: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/settings/projects
What might be better is getting added as a reviewer when certain
files/directories are changed (especially
Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...]
This doesn't happen in groups defined by geography who do
not have any other responsibility, but I certainly share
Sébastien's concern about groups targetting other fields.
Still concerned?
Yes :-). In my experience, creating groups will keep some
That's pretty nice, Merlijn.
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Tim Landscheidt t...@tim-landscheidt.dewrote:
Alex Monk kren...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure is that useful, because Gerrit can already notify you of new
changes for any project:
Am 28.12.2012 20:35, schrieb Siebrand Mazeland (WMF):
Could you make it so that I can subscribe to a file pattern, too? I'd like
to be added as a reviewer to all patch sets that include files with i18n in
the name (unless it's a patch set by L10n-bot).
+1 I am intestered in this too.
On 12/28/2012 11:30 AM, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...]
This doesn't happen in groups defined by geography who do
not have any other responsibility, but I certainly share
Sébastien's concern about groups targetting other fields.
Still concerned?
Yes :-).
On 12/28/2012 12:57 PM, Juliusz Gonera wrote:
On 12/27/2012 10:31 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
* What is the difference between +1 and +2, especially in Verified?
I think just how certain you are.
I still don't get it. I either think the code is good and should be
merged or it's not good
On 12/28/2012 09:12 AM, Merlijn van Deen wrote:
Hello all,
To add to the great work by Ori and Jon, I have my own recent pet
project to announce: Reviewer-bot, which adds reviewers to any new
changes uploaded to Gerrit.
The basic idea is as follows:
1) reviewer-bot listens to Gerrit's
On 12/28/2012 02:09 PM, Brad Jorsch wrote:
IMO leave it to Jenkins, if Jenkins is set up for the project. But if
you want to use it to indicate that you ran the unit tests yourself
and/or extensively tested it manually, feel free I guess as long as it
doesn't confuse Jenkins.
My understanding
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 22:27:36 +0100, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
My understanding is you *should* use it. Jenkins only does V+1, which
is Checked. V+2 is required for some/all repos (e.g. extensions).
Normally, the original developer at least should provide Verified (since
(responding to Siebrand, although others have made the same points)
On 28 December 2012 20:35, Siebrand Mazeland (WMF)
smazel...@wikimedia.org wrote:
That's pretty nice, Merlijn.
Thanks!
Could you make it so that I can subscribe to a file pattern, too? I'd like
to be added as a reviewer to
Thanks everyone for helping to clarify. The fact that there is still
confusion, uncertainty, and 'from my understating's though is
disconcerting. Can someone in the know document the actual
implications/guidelines/automated behavior/etc for this? And can someone
take responsibility for updating
Then we may want to get rid of tracking categories generated by code
and use pageprops instead?
I have no opinion on that one.
Tracking categories are nice for certain errors. They more explicitly
show there is an error, because there is a category at the bottom of
the page. User's can edit
On 12/29/2012 01:06 AM, Arthur Richards wrote:
Thanks everyone for helping to clarify. The fact that there is still
confusion, uncertainty, and 'from my understating's though is
disconcerting. Can someone in the know document the actual
implications/guidelines/automated behavior/etc for this?
IP block exemption is rarely given because it allows someone to keep
editing on their main account when a sock is blocked.
Tor exemption should be separate from IP block exemption.
Note - that's just a config setting away. The rights are already
separate rights, they just happen to be in the
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Hi,
Mozilla are asking for update about bug
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=758857
Can anybody help?
There's no change.
I think that nobody bothered with documenting because the process itself is
greatly in flux now. People are e.g. working on sandboxing the unit tests, so
they can be safely run on patchset submission, so jenkins could just use one
Verified level after running all tests.
--
Matma Rex
On 12/28/2012 10:27 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 12/29/2012 01:06 AM, Arthur Richards wrote:
Thanks everyone for helping to clarify. The fact that there is still
confusion, uncertainty, and 'from my understating's though is
disconcerting. Can someone in the know document the actual
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:52 AM, bawolff bawolff...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
There's no change. We're still waiting on MediaWiki changes to occur before
we switch logged-in users to HTTPS by default.
[...]
Furthermore, what does
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Sumana Harihareswara
suma...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/07/2012 01:13 PM, Niklas Laxström wrote:
Now that tests need +2 to be run, at least temporarily, I'm going to
point out that I've not been able to run tests on my development
environment in ages. I
36 matches
Mail list logo
