On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Daniel Friesen dan...@nadir-seen-fire.com
wrote:
Any such discussion should probably start with this:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_2.0
The page is an outline of a plan. It sounds pretty good to me. Whatever
happened to that initiative? Did it
Le 16/01/2015 05:26, Chad a écrit :
Agreed. Although it means we'll never be able to use 2.0 because
2.0 from 1.x has total rewrite implications even if it's not true.
I've been saying for over a year now we should just drop the 1. from
the 1.x.y release versions. So the next release would
Le 15/01/2015 18:31, Legoktm a écrit :
On 01/14/2015 04:57 PM, James Douglas wrote:
I'd love to hear your thoughts and learn about your related experiences.
What are your favorite code coverage tools and services?
PHPUnit has a useful code coverage tool and there are reports running
for
One of the bigger questions I have about the potential shift to requiring
services is the fate of shared hosting deployments of MediaWiki.
Seems like an opportunity. Deploy your MediaWiki-Vagrant instance to our
cloud infrastructure cheap. It's not $2/month, but Digital Ocean can host
a 1GB
On 16 January 2015 at 07:38, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
These days I'm not convinced it's our job to support every possible
scale of wiki install. There's several simpler and smaller wiki solutions
for people who can't do more than FTP a few files to a folder.
In this case the
Ori Livneh o...@wikimedia.org writes:
The model I do think we should consider is Python 3. Python 3 did not
jettison the Python 2 codebase. The intent behind the major version change
was to open up a parallel development track in which it was permissible to
break backward-compatibility in the
On 15-01-16 02:48 AM, Max Semenik wrote:
Can't agree on this, as the number covers [...]
An extra datapoint here: I think I can reasonably consider myself an
atypical user at the tail end of the sysadmin curve, and yet the
principal reason why I had delayed installing VisualEditor on a
[...] Perhaps people
who get most of their news from this mailing list are [...]
Why does this matter? What other sources are there?
It seems you're saying there is a divide between the main development
community (on this list) and some other unspecified group which
communicates by some
Trevor Parscal tpars...@wikimedia.org writes:
95% is pretty extreme.
Not according to WikiApiary. The largest host for wikis, even before
Wikimedia, is DreamHost followed closely by GoDaddy and other shared
hosters such as 11.[1]
Yes, Amazon and Linode are also near the top of the list, but
On Jan 16, 2015 9:21 AM, Mark A. Hershberger m...@nichework.com wrote:
Ori Livneh o...@wikimedia.org writes:
The model I do think we should consider is Python 3. Python 3 did not
jettison the Python 2 codebase. The intent behind the major version
change
was to open up a parallel
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
However, with clear API architecture we could maybe have
alternatives - i.e. be able to have the same service performed by a
superpowered cluster or by a PHP implementation on the URL on the same
host.
The problem
On Jan 16, 2015 11:07 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
However, with clear API architecture we could maybe have
alternatives - i.e. be able to have the same service performed by a
Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com writes:
Does anyone actually have anything they want that is difficult to do
currently and requires a mass compat break?
I haven't heard of any mass compat break items. But I have seen
developers who aren't worried about compatibility or continuity of
features
LDQ 2015 CALL FOR PAPERS
2nd Workshop on Linked Data Quality
co-located with ESWC 2015, Portorož, Slovenia
May 31 or June 1, 2015
http://ldq.semanticmultimedia.org/
Important Dates
* Submission of research papers: March 6, 2015
* Notification of paper acceptance: April 3, 2015
* Submission
Le 16/01/2015 07:38, Bryan Davis a écrit :
There has been a lot of talk over the last year or so of how and when
to move MediaWiki to a service oriented architecture [0]. So much so
that it is actually one of the a marquee topics at the upcoming
Developer Summit.
snip
Hello,
Moving to a
Before I talk about the architecture committee, let me just say that I think
the idea of MediaWiki 2.0 is off-topic and should be moved to a different
thread.
/ontopic
At this point I’d like to contribute a little bit of my experience from working
on the Architecture Committee at Chase Auto
On 16 January 2015 at 16:09, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
So what we might end up with:
- Wikimedia using the SOA MediaWiki with split components maintained by
staff and the Wikimedia volunteers devs. Code which is of no use for
the cluster is dropped which would surely ease
On 01/16/2015 01:49 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
I think we're trying to fulfill a bit of a contradictory requirement
here - running on the same software both the site of the size of
*.wikipedia.org and a 1-visit-a-week-maybe $2/month shared hosting
install. I think it would be increasingly hard
On Fri Jan 16 2015 at 8:15:45 AM Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
As mentioned, MediaWiki is not an open source community at the moment. It
is
an engineering organization that just happens to have open source
contributors.
It's hard to have a community when we keep hiring everyone
[Moving threads for on-topic-ness.]
On 16 January 2015 at 07:01, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone actually have
anything they want that is difficult to do currently and requires a mass
compat break?
Sure.
Three quick examples of things on the horizon (I'm not particularly
quote name=David Gerard date=2015-01-16 time=16:27:22 +
This is not a great idea because it makes WMF wikis unforkable in
practical terms. The data is worthless without being able to run an
instance of the software. This will functionally proprietise all WMF
wikis, whatever the licence
On 16 January 2015 at 17:10, Greg Grossmeier g...@wikimedia.org wrote:
quote name=David Gerard date=2015-01-16 time=16:27:22 +
This is not a great idea because it makes WMF wikis unforkable in
practical terms. The data is worthless without being able to run an
instance of the software.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:29 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2015 at 07:38, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
These days I'm not convinced it's our job to support every possible
scale of wiki install. There's several simpler and smaller wiki solutions
for people
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:27 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2015 at 16:09, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
So what we might end up with:
- Wikimedia using the SOA MediaWiki with split components maintained by
staff and the Wikimedia volunteers devs. Code
On January 16, 2015 at 11:59:14, Chad (innocentkil...@gmail.com) wrote:
It's hard to have a community when we keep hiring everyone out of it.
We should use this as an advertising point. “Come contribute to MediaWiki,
there’s a pretty high percentage we’ll hire you.” :P
--
Tyler Romeo
Rob, thanks for starting this discussion!
We definitely should be thinking about what kind of structures make sense;
the arch committee was a good spike solution which I think we've
determined doesn't quite work as it is, but the core idea of getting some
active people to talk to each other
IMHO, the cases traditionally handled by tiny one-off wiki on shared
hosting would be better served by migrating to a dedicated wiki hosting
service which will actually update the software for security issues and new
features.
I believe WMF should concentrate on the large-scale hosting case, with
On Jan 16, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:29 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2015 at 07:38, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
These days I'm not convinced it's our job to support every possible
scale of wiki
It's really exciting to see people let go of unnecessary authority,
dismantle bureaucracy and resist building empires. I applaud the restraint
the committee is using here. I think it speaks volumes about who they are
as leaders.
As Brion suggests, it's important to retain the idea of getting some
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Ryan Schmidt skizz...@gmail.com wrote:
This sounds like a problem we need to fix, rather than making it worse.
I'd most wikis are not up to date then we should work on making it easier
to keep up to date, not making it harder. Any SOA approach is sadly DOA
I challenge the very foundation of arguments based on this 95% statistic.
The 95% statistic is bogus, not because it's inaccurate, but because it's
misleading.
The number of MediaWiki instances out there is meaningless. The value we
get from 3rd party use correlates much more strongly with the
Why wikitext is so much disliked? It's more compact to type than HTML. It's
a templating language. HTML is not. Then something like Handlebars (which
is weaker than wikitext) should be used. Or, something like web components
and custom tags. But why removing nice thing (wikitext) which saves a lot
Apologies for cross-listing this--I initially (and erroneously) only sent
it internally
--
Hi,
For those of you I haven't yet met, I am a new product manager in SF,
working with the mobile web team (I look forward to meeting you)!
I just wanted to let you all know about a new project we are
On 16/01/15 19:05, Trevor Parscal wrote:
I challenge the very foundation of arguments based on this 95% statistic.
The 95% statistic is bogus, not because it's inaccurate, but because it's
misleading.
The number of MediaWiki instances out there is meaningless. The value we
get from 3rd party
Hi and welcome. Thanks for sharing. Do you already have a mediawiki.org
page for this idea?
Please choose another name. Collection is taken.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Collection
Nemo
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Great to hear you're taking on this work!
From my wishlist, I'd like to see support for cross-wiki collections (T19168
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T19168), this could be used to make
really cool multimodal or bilingual materials...
Thanks,
Adam
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Federico
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
The 95% statistic may not be meaningful, but neither is this. The number of
users involved does not reflect the importance of the information presented
any more than that a project exists at all.
The mission of the
On 16/01/15 20:28, Brion Vibber wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
The 95% statistic may not be meaningful, but neither is this. The number of
users involved does not reflect the importance of the information presented
any more than that a project
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
What you're forgetting is that WMF abandoned MediaWiki as an Open Source
project quite a while ago (at least 2 years ago).
{{citation needed}}
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
What you're forgetting is that WMF abandoned MediaWiki as an Open Source
project quite a while ago (at least 2 years ago).
{{citation
The next two weeks will hopefully be quiet, deployment-wise. This is due
to two weeks of in-person events that will take the majority of the
attention of WMF and community engineers.
== Week of January 19th ==
Summary:
* No MediaWiki train deploy due to WMF All Hands
** WMF All Hands is all day
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
What you're forgetting is that WMF abandoned MediaWiki as an Open Source
project quite a while ago (at least 2 years ago).
{{citation needed}}
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
What you're forgetting is that WMF abandoned MediaWiki as an
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think the confusion between third party support and an open
source project is unhelpful. We're obviously an open source project
with lots of contributors who aren't paid (and many of them are
motivated by Wikimedia's
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
So this was never publicly announced and has had no visible effect, to the
point that the latest version of all the code is still publicly available
under a free license and volunteers are still encouraged to
On 16/01/15 21:20, Erik Moeller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
What you're forgetting is that WMF abandoned MediaWiki as an Open Source
project quite a while ago (at least 2 years
Hi!
The problem there is that the PHP implementation is likely to code-rot,
unless we create really good unit tests that actually run for it.
With service architecture, there should be a test suite running against
the service and verifying the compliance with the API definition. So if
the PHP
On 01/13/2015 09:08 AM, Bryan Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
I know we just added some new maintenance scripts for checking things with
composer. I’m sure it wouldn’t be that bad having update.php check first and
tell the user to run
Hi!
I have nominated TTO for +2 in mediawiki/ repositories:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit/Project_ownership#TTO_for_.2B2_in_mediawiki.2F.
Please comment :)
Additionally, there are some other requests on that page that could use
some comments.
Thanks,
-- Legoktm
49 matches
Mail list logo
