On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
I've now run this on mediawiki/core, and the repo went from 3.0G down to
~620M on disk.
I copy+pasted this wrong. This is actually 323M on disk. To give you an
idea of the kind of savings we're looking at for fetch clone,
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
This is actually 323M on disk.
Wow. Bravo. That is truly an extraordinary improvement.
*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | tylerro...@gmail.com
On 04/03/2013 02:02 AM, Chad wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
I've now run this on mediawiki/core, and the repo went from 3.0G down to
~620M on disk.
I copy+pasted this wrong. This is actually 323M on disk. To give you an
idea of the kind of
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
I have been drafting a proposal to attract new contributors, help them
settle in, and connect them to interesting tasks. It turns out that many
of these problems are not unique to new contributors. We suffer them as
well and we are
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Ori Livneh o...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
I have been drafting a proposal to attract new contributors, help them
settle in, and connect them to interesting tasks. It turns out that many
of these problems
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:02:19AM -0400, Chad wrote:
[ cloning core in 3 minutes ]
Yay \o/
Chad, you rock!
Thanks,
Christian
--
quelltextlich e.U. \\ Christian Aistleitner
Companies' registry: 360296y in Linz
Christian Aistleitner
On 04/03/2013 02:02 AM, Chad wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
I've now run this on mediawiki/core, and the repo went from 3.0G down to
~620M on disk.
I copy+pasted this wrong. This is actually 323M on disk. To give you an
idea of the kind of
2013/3/28 Petr Onderka gsv...@gmail.com
How will be the queries formatted? Do I understand it correctly that a
QueryConcept is a JSON object?
Not decided yet. Probably it will be a JSON object, though, and edited
through an UI.
Have you considered using something more in line with the
Ori Livneh wrote:
The core of MediaWiki is in my mind still radical and exciting: you make
or find a page, click edit, and just type into it.
This feels like a hyper-idealized version of MediaWiki.
Describe the page creation process in WordPress and then describe the page
creation process in
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:06 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Describe the page creation process in WordPress and then describe the page
creation process in MediaWiki. The MediaWiki process is three times as
long and includes three times more caveats.
Maybe I'm missing something, but
Ryan Lane wrote:
mediawiki.org will still exist to document MediaWiki. The domain name
itself makes it fairly ill-fit to document our non-MediaWiki software
documentation.
I follow Wikimedia pretty closely and I have no idea what the distinction
between the two wikis (wikitech.wikimedia.org and
Tyler Romeo wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but what about the MediaWiki page creation
process isn't find a page, click edit, and just type into it?
Sure, that's easy enough to explain: page creation suggests that the page
does not yet exist. So you'll never get past the find a page step. ;-)
Hi everyone!
I think that there are two categories of developers now:
1) Wikimedia developers deal with Wikimedia tasks of running Wikipedia and
all other projects
2) Independent developers which use MediaWiki for their needs. I think that
not much of us even know that wikitech website exist. :)
Hi, about Wikitech / mediawiki.org check
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_communications/Dev_wiki_consolidation
On 04/03/2013 12:30 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
That seems wrong. Of the two, MediaWiki.org is clearly the more
successful wiki.
Sure, but following this argument we could just
On 04/03/2013 09:48 AM, Yury Katkov wrote:
IMO stuff related to inner projects of Wikimedia foundation should be
located on wikitech. Manuals that are related to MediaWiki as a software
and its extensions should live on MediaWiki.org. No Wikimedia-specific
materials here.
This seems like a
About the virtues of MediaWiki software.
On 04/03/2013 12:30 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
The core of MediaWiki is in my mind still radical and exciting: you
make or find a page, click edit, and just type into it.
I agree, and perhaps this is one of the reasons why we are still here
and not at
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 04/03/2013 09:48 AM, Yury Katkov wrote:
IMO stuff related to inner projects of Wikimedia foundation should be
located on wikitech. Manuals that are related to MediaWiki as a software
and its extensions should live on
On 04/03/2013 06:48 AM, Yury Katkov wrote:
Hi everyone!
I think that there are two categories of developers now:
1) Wikimedia developers deal with Wikimedia tasks of running Wikipedia and
all other projects
2) Independent developers which use MediaWiki for their needs. I think that
not much of
Le 03/04/13 15:48, Yury Katkov a écrit :
IMO stuff related to inner projects of Wikimedia foundation should be
located on wikitech. Manuals that are related to MediaWiki as a software
and its extensions should live on MediaWiki.org. No Wikimedia-specific
materials here.
I fully support that
Le 03/04/13 11:18, Ryan Lane a écrit :
One example of how semantics could improve mediawiki.org is the extension
matrix https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_Matrix.
Can't we get Semantic extensions deployed on mediawiki.org ?
--
Antoine hashar Musso
On Apr 3, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Le 03/04/13 11:18, Ryan Lane a écrit :
One example of how semantics could improve mediawiki.org is the extension
matrix https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_Matrix.
Can't we get Semantic extensions deployed on
It seems that it's what's planning now, isn't it? Turn on SMW, Semantic
Forms and maybe other semantic extensions and modify the existing templates
to use them.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Le 03/04/13 11:18, Ryan Lane a écrit :
One example of how
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Le 03/04/13 11:18, Ryan Lane a écrit :
One example of how semantics could improve mediawiki.org is the
extension
matrix
On 04/03/2013 11:58 AM, Yury Katkov wrote:
Why? SMW is already here, it's documented beautifully, it has good
performance, active community and it is NOT developing by Wikimedia
Foundation, which is good political decision for the MediaWiki.org portal
which aimed to be closer to 3rd party
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 05:45:58AM -0700, Quim Gil wrote:
* wikitech.wikimedia.org would become the one and only site for our
open source software contributors, powered by semantic software and
an ontology of categories shared across wiki pages, Bugzilla and
hopefully Gerrit.
This is
Jon, do you think it might make sense to hide all those jenkin-bot
comments? They are mostly noise, and the only time when compilation fails,
its ok to click to expand just that comment. Or maybe just expand the last
jenkin-bot comment, but hide all the previous ones.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:53
On 4/3/13 12:55 AM, Chad wrote:
Hi all,
tl;dr: I've cleaned up the mediawiki/core repo, and performance for fetch/clone
operations should be noticeably faster.
Fast enough that non-interactive clones don't time out anymore! \o/
___
Wikitech-l
On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Ryan Lane wrote:
Spend some time editing a well designed Semantically enabled wiki. Web
Platform is a good example: http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Main_Page.
There's a high degree of structure there. That wiki is way above average
quality from the
On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Andrew Bogott wrote:
On 4/3/13 12:55 AM, Chad wrote:
Hi all,
tl;dr: I've cleaned up the mediawiki/core repo, and performance for
fetch/clone
operations should be noticeably faster.
Fast enough that non-interactive clones don't time out
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Ori Livneh o...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Ryan Lane wrote:
Spend some time editing a well designed Semantically enabled wiki. Web
Platform is a good example: http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Main_Page
.
There's a high
On 04/03/2013 11:11 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
required. What you are proposing is considerably more ambitious in
scope (Web Platform doesn't integrate with bug management and SCM),
but some napkin cost analysis could be very useful.
Yes, but I didn't want to go too far with implementation details
Yuri
Great minds think alike ;-)
https://github.com/jdlrobson/gerrit-be-nice-to-me/commit/d6fd7913ff8fd7b1b57003797ba9ecb1134797d4
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Yuri Astrakhan yastrak...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Jon, do you think it might make sense to hide all those jenkin-bot
comments? They
hehe, thanks! :), just pulled again, but, its broken a bit :(
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/53131/ -- at first i thought it deleted
comment lines, but apparently its just in indecipherable colors, until
clicked
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
Yuri
You'll need to reload the extension in chrome://extensions
It purposely doesn't delete the comment lines - it just makes them
invisible just in case you might want to see them. It's all one big hack so
might be wrong but it works for me ;-)
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Yuri Astrakhan
on both monitors i checked, 0.2 opacity is too low, plus I don't think it
should apply to the border, just the header inside it, which also removes
the need to restore it on click. What do you think?
function silentNoise( $commentPanel ) {
// makes jenkins comments less prominent
On 04/03/2013 03:30 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
That seems wrong. Of the two, MediaWiki.org is clearly the more
successful wiki. It is larger by all measures, and draws a wide pool
of active contributors.
I don't know that it's appropriate to put WMF-only stuff on the
MediaWiki site. Of course, I'm
On 04/03/2013 09:15 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
Ryan Lane wrote:
mediawiki.org will still exist to document MediaWiki. The domain name
itself makes it fairly ill-fit to document our non-MediaWiki software
documentation.
I follow Wikimedia pretty closely and I have no idea what the distinction
On 04/03/2013 11:58 AM, Yury Katkov wrote:
Why? SMW is already here, it's documented beautifully, it has good
performance, active community and it is NOT developing by Wikimedia
Foundation, which is good political decision for the MediaWiki.org portal
which aimed to be closer to 3rd party
On 04/03/2013 11:26 AM, Antoine Musso wrote:
Le 03/04/13 15:48, Yury Katkov a écrit :
IMO stuff related to inner projects of Wikimedia foundation should be
located on wikitech. Manuals that are related to MediaWiki as a software
and its extensions should live on MediaWiki.org. No
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Matthew Flaschen
mflasc...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 04/03/2013 11:58 AM, Yury Katkov wrote:
Why? SMW is already here, it's documented beautifully, it has good
performance, active community and it is NOT developing by Wikimedia
Foundation, which is good
I'm not sure I understand your point. If it's better for mediawiki.org
to have a non-WMF extension doing this, and neither SMW nor Wikidata are
developed by WMF, how is SMW a better choice than Wikidata?
Alex Monk
On 03/04/13 21:23, Yury Katkov wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:55 PM,
On 04/03/2013 01:55 AM, Chad wrote:
Hi all,
tl;dr: I've cleaned up the mediawiki/core repo, and performance for
fetch/clone
operations should be noticeably faster.
This also seems to have fixed
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46399 (the Included in
feature in Gerrit was
On 03/04/13 19:37, Quim Gil wrote:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Wikitech_contributors#First_iteration
is supposed to be completed in 3 months, and even there you have some
easier tasks that could be implemented pretty fast, namely forms
templates for
* User profiles.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Agreed.
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/**Requests_for_comment/Wikitech_**
contributors#First_iterationhttp://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Wikitech_contributors#First_iterationis
supposed to be completed in 3
We are in the process of phasing out Clicktracking. An example of this
is https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/46205/ . If you are relying on
this for an extension, you should explore other options, such as
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Event_logging .
Matt Flaschen
On 03/04/13 20:48, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 04/03/2013 03:30 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
That seems wrong. Of the two, MediaWiki.org is clearly the more
successful wiki. It is larger by all measures, and draws a wide pool
of active contributors.
I don't know that it's appropriate to put WMF-only
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
Quim, I think even this first iteration is problematic on a bunch of
fronts. 3 months as a first iteration to build several major features as
the basic proof of concept should be a sign that you're biting off too
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/04/13 20:48, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 04/03/2013 03:30 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
That seems wrong. Of the two, MediaWiki.org is clearly the more
successful wiki. It is larger by all measures, and draws a wide pool
of
On 03/04/13 14:48, Yury Katkov wrote:
Hi everyone!
I think that there are two categories of developers now:
1) Wikimedia developers deal with Wikimedia tasks of running Wikipedia and
all other projects
2) Independent developers which use MediaWiki for their needs. I think that
not much of us
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com
wrote:
Quim, I think even this first iteration is problematic on a bunch of
fronts. 3 months as a first iteration to build several major features as
On 03/04/13 22:26, Ryan Lane wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/04/13 20:48, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 04/03/2013 03:30 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
That seems wrong. Of the two, MediaWiki.org is clearly the more
successful wiki. It is larger by
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
Let me put it a simpler way: I don't support moving to Semantic MediaWiki,
which to me as user seems like a somewhat arcane and bloated piece of
software that will require me and lots of people to relearn how we
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are a content organizer that modifies templates and likes
to make structures easier for for readers and editors, SMW actually makes
it much easier to do things that are otherwise impossible in MediaWiki
without
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are a content organizer that modifies templates and likes
to make structures easier for for readers and editors, SMW actually makes
it
I recently tried to create a small javascript to parse user signature times
on talk pages [1]. With it the readers would have been able to see the
signature's timestamp in their preferred timezone (and as a side effect it
would be consistent with the revision history) without breaking caching.
Well, the *proper* fix is a sane discussion system where messages are
first-class objects and timestamps are clean metadata that can be displayed
appropriately. :)
As a hack for existing talk pages though, what you're proposing should work.
Parsing the timestamps in the text is a bit tough as it
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
The proposal is to move non-MediaWiki documentation our of
mediawiki.orginto a more generically named wiki. The proposal isn't
for migrating all of
mediawiki.org.
Thanks for the clarification. Sorry to confuse the discussion
It is not surprising that long term contributors with advanced wiki
editing skills and familiar with the key people and corners of our
community don't see a big need for change. Well, this is part of the
problem.
Yes, Gerrit and Bugzilla have issues. This proposal focuses on the
potential
Hey,
I don't support moving to Semantic MediaWiki,
... will require me and lots of people to relearn how we write
documentation and project tracking, unless you can show why the changes you
want to make are A) necessary B) require SMW to accomplish them.
That is incorrect. SMW does not force
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.comwrote:
That is incorrect. SMW does not force users to learn new things. I imagine
that the setup Quim has in mind does not involve workflows for basic
documentation tasks that require users going though them to have knowdlge
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:34:28 -0700, Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com wrote:
Parsing the timestamps in the text is a bit tough as it may be different
in
different languages my recommendation is to include a
'data-timestamp'
attribute on that span and put in a language-independent
Hey,
I'm curious what the list thinks of deprecating and eventually removing the
Hooks class. Some relevant info:
/**
* Hooks class.
*
* Used to supersede $wgHooks, because globals are EVIL.
*
* @since 1.18
*/
https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/blob/master/includes/Hooks.php#L30
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey,
I'm curious what the list thinks of deprecating and eventually removing the
Hooks class. Some relevant info:
/**
* Hooks class.
*
* Used to supersede $wgHooks, because globals are EVIL.
*
* @since
On Apr 3, 2013 9:52 PM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey,
I'm curious what the list thinks of deprecating and eventually removing
the
Hooks class. Some relevant info:
/**
* Hooks class.
*
* Used to supersede $wgHooks, because globals are EVIL.
*
* @since 1.18
*/
On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
As I see it, the current proposal is already taking shortcuts in order
to have fast iterations. 3 months doesn't mean you don't relese new
features in between.
Anything related with enabling Semantic Forms in specific types of
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:51:54 -0700, Jeroen De Dauw
jeroended...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey,
I'm curious what the list thinks of deprecating and eventually removing
the Hooks class.
I see no reason to get rid of the hooks class. We use static classes other
places in core. And there's no
Hey,
I see no reason to get rid of the hooks class.
Given you also do not understand why I think the comment is funny, I
recommend you read up on why writing static code is harmful. And on how
global state can hide in static classes.
We use static classes other places in core.
4 Апрель 2013 г. 9:16:49 пользователь Jeroen De Dauw (jeroended...@gmail.com)
написал:
Hey,
I see no reason to get rid of the hooks class.
Given you also do not understand why I think the comment is funny, I
recommend you read up on why writing static code is harmful. And on how
global state
68 matches
Mail list logo
