Hi everyone
I've just posted postmortem notes on the MediaWiki 1.17 release here:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.17/Release_postmortem
...and since I expect there will be some editing/futzing with that
page, I've included the full wikitext below. Also, I wouldn't be
surprised if this
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Someone is copy pasting the same .html file on each release over and
over since the tool was created :-)
Yeah, it was a rush job.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
You gave me the git repo at one point. Still haven't managed to look at
the code and enhance it. Maybe we could add it to the subversion
repository and have volunteers enhance it.
Here's the repo:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com wrote:
When we were prepping 1.17 for deployment the theory seemed to be that it'd
be out the door and *done* within a couple weeks and we'd be able to
concentrate on 1.18 from there out and keep up with everything.
Part of the
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
On 07/06/11 23:27, Rob Lanphier wrote:
http://toolserver.org/~robla/crstats/crstats.118all.html
And here's the goals I posted on Friday:
2011-Jun-03 1594
2011-Jun-10 1329
2011-Jun-17 1064
2011-Jun
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Mark A. Hershberger
mhershber...@wikimedia.org wrote:
There has been some talk among developers and others about bundling some
extensions with the tarball. The new installer supports enabling
extensions during installation, so if we're going to do it, I would
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This would be 1.19 at the earliest. 1.18 is already branched, and if we're
aspiring to do much more frequent releases, the last thing we should do
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com wrote:
Currently working (mostly backwards) to fill in the Code Review holes
from
before 1.18 branch point:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:13 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
If there's any
support or help that non-developers can offer in this process, please update
the mailing list with information as to how. A lot of people are keen on
seeing some steady progress forward. :-)
I think one thing
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Right. And just to weigh in quickly on the resources issue -- the
review/deploy/release train is clearly not moving at the pace we want.
This does affect WMF staffers and contractors as well, but we know
that it's
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.com wrote:
This, for me, is the remaining problem with the 72-hour rule. If I
happen to commit a SecurePoll change during a hackathon in Europe just
as Tim leaves for the airport to go home, it's pretty much guaranteed
that he
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Neil Kandalgaonkar
ne...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Are we all in deadlock or something? Are the users who can push waiting
from some proposals/work from the rest of the community?
We had a hallway conversation about this just now (Neil, Trevor, Brion
and I, and then
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 9:15 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
Is there a status update about more regular code deployments to Wikimedia
wikis? I know it's been discussed endlessly, but I was under the impression
that it was a real goal going forward. Is that still the
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Krinkle krinklem...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. Defaulting new bugs to a low priority doesn't seem very
friendly
to new users. They don't know (and shouldn't have to know) what the
bugmeister's organization is.
I thought about replying with a similar response,
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com
wrote:
If, as Tim says, Wikimedia developers were un-assigned from code
review after the 1.17 deployment, *that* is the problem that needs to
be fixed. We need a managerial decision that all relatively
experienced
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 23/03/11 04:24, Rob Lanphier wrote:
The most convincing general Subversion-DVCS argument I've read is here:
http://hginit.com/00.html
This argument refers to Mercurial, but the same benefits apply to Git
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Siebrand Mazeland s.mazel...@xs4all.nl wrote:
IMO that a bridge too far. My question is Why should we make this
happen?, and more specifically, what do our various stakeholders (which
groups?) gain or lose in case MediaWiki development would shift from
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Happy-melon happy-me...@live.com wrote:
To my mind, this is one of the most important points. We have built up a
very comprehensive infrastructure for code review in SVN, and there is a lot
of manhours behind that work; and just as many hours associated with
Hi everyone,
Russ Nelson (svn account: nelson) is a new committer to core
MediaWiki. Russ is contracting to Wikimedia Foundation to create a
scalable media storage system based on OpenStack's Swift object store,
some Swift middleware custom for MediaWiki, and File and
FileRepo-derived classes
Reposting from techblog:
http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2011/03/site-fixes/
-
Site fixes this week
We’re still in the middle of cleaning up some lingering issues from the
1.17 deployment, and despite our best efforts, you may see a little bit of
quirkiness in the site:
* One
Hi everyone,
I'd like to welcome Sumana Harihareswara as a consultant helping out
with some tasks that we eventually plan to hire a Volunteer
Development Coordinator to handle. Specifically, she's going to focus
on our participation in Google Summer of Code, as well as helping plan
WMF's
Hi everyone,
In case you missed it on the techblog, here's an update on the revised
deployment plan for 1.17, part 1 of which starts in 7 hours:
http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2011/02/1-17deployment-attempt2/
Also copied below.
Rob
--
As covered on this blog this week, we had a few problems
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/2/11 Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org:
First window
This first deployment window will be to a limited set of wikis:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/ (simplewiki)
http://simple.wiktionary.org
Hi everyone,
We're getting very close to deploying 1.17 to the Wikimedia Foundation
websites, but still have a fair amount of code (102 revisions) to
review and possibly revert. One big obstacle that could cause us to
get cold feet is the number of revisions marked fixme (29
revisions):
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:41 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Rob Lanphier wrote:
Just repeating something I just posted to
http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2011/02/planned-1-17-deployment/
Thank you for posting here. I'm not sure about others, but I rarely visit
Hi everyone,
Here's a breakdown of the revisions left to review:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_roadmap/1.17/Revision_report
Current count of branches plus extensions: 283
There's a script to generate this (publishing source later; requires
toolserver), so we should be able to maintain
Hi everyone,
Earlier this week, I added Apekshit Sharma (appy) as a committer in
extensions-only for work on Article Highlight:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Article_Highlight
Welcome appy!
Rob
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Hi everyone,
Here's a quick update on the 1.17 release of Mediawiki. The code
review group continues to make headway on the backlog of outstanding
checkins in new status. We peaked at 1400 unreviewed checkins back
in September, last month we were at 800, and now we're now under 300.
We *hope*
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com wrote:
Exactly my point -- spending time tinkering with
sortof-human-readable-but-not-powerful-enough syntax distracts from thinking
about what needs to be *described* in the data... which is the important
thing needed when devising
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:59 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
That we've multiply concluded that it will never change doesn't mean
it won't; as a thought exercise, as I suggested in OtherThread, we
should consider negating that conclusion and seeing what happens.
Agreed. I
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
If, for example, we can build some sort of per-revision indicator of
markup language (sort of similar to mime type) which would let us
support multiple
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Neil Kandalgaonkar
ne...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Let's imagine you wanted to start a rival to Wikipedia. Assume that you
are motivated by money, and that venture capitalists promise you can be
paid gazillions of dollars if you can do one, or many, of the
Hi Brion,
Thanks for laying out the problem so clearly! I agree wholeheartedly
that we need to avoid thinking about this problem too narrowly as a
user interface issue on top of existing markup+templates. More
inline:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com wrote:
This
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Daniel Friesen
li...@nadir-seen-fire.com wrote:
I've been chipping away at our skins system lately, there's a lot we can
improve to improve the skins system.
Right now there's a lot of it that doesn't work so nicely for an
ecosystem promoting the creation of a
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly superfluous clarification: what we're talking about here is
to branch 1.17wmf1 (i.e. WMF deployment), not an immediate 1.17
release candidate. Obviously we'd deploy first and release later,
that's what we've
Hi everyone,
The code review team has been doing a fantastic job of clearing out
the backlog, which you can see here:
http://toolserver.org/~robla/crstats/crstats.html
(uncheck ok on the checkboxes on the bottom to see new commits)
There's some release planning issues that we have to sort out:
Hi everyone,
On IRC, Trevor lead the charge to Etherpad!, and some of us
followed. This was the result:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_roadmap/1.17
This is an aggressive plan, starting with branching for 1.17 early
next week. It is by no means official; Tim and Mark H are both named,
Hi everyone,
It's been a while since I've updated the notes from our test framework
meetings, so I just did so today:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Meetings/Test_framework
The meeting earlier today is here:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Meetings/Test_framework/2010-12-02
Not a lot of context in
Hi lampak
This wasn't an intentional omission. Bug filed:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26112
Rob
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 2:49 PM, lampak llam...@gmail.com wrote:
... or at least a few pieces of it don't.
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Statystyki_oznaczania
Hi everyone,
We are currently planning to roll out a new version of the FlaggedRevs
extension to all wikis on Tuesday, November 23 starting roughly 3:15pm
PST (23:15 UTC). This is used for Pending Changes on en.wikipedia.org
and Flagged Revisions on many other wikis (such as de.wikipedia.org
and
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Jack Phoenix
j...@countervandalism.net wrote:
I want to have my SocialProfile-related commits (as well as other extension
commits) reviewed, but the deferred status doesn't mean review me later,
it means nobody cares about this revision, or at least currently
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 15/11/10 06:58, Jack Phoenix wrote:
The deployment queue is already long enough and people who are reviewing
code for Wikimedia deployment are having a hard time catching up; I don't
want to make their work any
Hi everyone,
Some context here: Jinesh and the folks at Calcey are going to be pitching
in on building out our Selenium test framework. I asked them to take a look
here:
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
+1. I feel like we're trying to change a workflow when we should be
trying to get rid of a backlog. Instead of trying to discuss ways to
improve the workflow, we should Just Do It.
The problem is agreeing on what it is.
Hi everyone,
One discussion we had at the Hack-a-ton was about the continued
frustration of getting features deployed to the WMF-operated sites.
Prior to Hack-a-ton, one short-term solution we started work on was
consolidating the review queue into a single place:
Hi Trevor and Roan
Comments inline (Roan, my reply to you is way below)
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Trevor Parscal tpars...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The idea of dividing deploy and enable seems strange to me. Only in the
case of a feature-flagged bit of core code or extension which has
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
This has been a long development process for almost 2 years
now, and I'd like to thank Max, Mark H., Jure, Jeroen, Roan
and Siebrand for their invaluable help in working on this. And
especially thanks to Tim for starting
Hi everyone,
This is another update on Pending Changes work. Over the Hack-a-ton
weekend, Chad Horohoe and Priyanka Dhanda worked on two of the bigger
features for the November 16 Pending Changes update:
Bug 25294 - Reject button confirmation screen in Pending Changes
Hi everyone,
There have been a number of calls to make the release process more
predictable (or maybe just faster). There are plenty of examples of
projects that have very predictable release schedules, such as the
GNOME project or the Ubuntu Linux distribution. It's not at all
unreasonable to
Hi all,
In diving into a problem with logging[1], we discovered that we were
unintentionally treating several special page accesses (in this case,
containing included Javascript) as normal pageviews, thus throwing our
pageview statistics way off. The proposed solution involves changing
the way
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Neil Kandalgaonkar ne...@wikimedia.org wrote:
If I've understood you correctly, your suggestion is that, to make
logging easier, we should adopt a convention of how we call certain web
resources.
I'm not so much suggesting it as I am stating the status quo, and
Hi all,
Pulling out a subconversation from the collaboration thread
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
The number one thing that
volunteers are unhappy about is non-deployment of volunteer code.
Why? Because the only reason for their
Hi everyone,
A few of us (Brandon, Alolita, and I) had a conversation about
clearing up the more vague items on the Pending Changes roadmap
(http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial/Roadmap ),
and we'd like to get some further feedback on what we discussed.
First, the priority
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:28 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Rob Lanphier wrote:
A few of us (Brandon, Alolita, and I) had a conversation about
clearing up the more vague items on the Pending Changes roadmap
(http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial/Roadmap
Hi everyone,
I'd like to make everyone aware of this new open position:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Bugmeister
The goal for the person hired to this position is to sift through the many,
many bugs we have in Bugzilla, and surface the ones that are most important
for everyone
Hi everyone,
Pending Changes work continues apace. The big thing we'd like to call
everyone's attention to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Feedback#Call_for_specific_feedback_on_UI_elements
We'd really like to get your input on specific suggestions that we can
implement
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:38 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Rob Lanphier wrote:
I'd like to make everyone aware of this new open position:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Bugmeister
I edited that page yesterday. Two parts were unclear to me, though:
Is the position
Hi everyone,
As many of you know, the results of the poll to keep Pending Changes
on through a short development cycle were approved for interim usage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll_on_interim_usage
Ongoing use of Pending Changes is contingent upon consensus
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:43 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Nobody seems to have replied to this thread in about a week, which I think
indicates a problem, so I'm gonna poke a bit here.
Rob Lanphier wrote:
As you probably know, we're trying to get into the habit of providing
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Max Semenik maxsem.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21.09.2010, 6:09 Rob wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by this. October 15 would be the branch
point, not the release date. Are you saying that we have to release
to production one month before even branching off
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:36 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 September 2010 17:26, Rob Lanphier ro...@robla.net wrote:
Doesn't this kinda depend on what our priorities are and what the
priorities of people running MediaWiki are? There are many demands
placed by Wikipedia
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:01 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Quite a few people are under the impression that MediaWiki 1.17 will be
released in October or November of this year.
I don't think there's been many public references to this, but that is
more or less the timeframe many of us
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@robla.net wrote:
The goal, as I recall, was branching October 15 or thereabouts, with
first beta in November, and a release sometime after that (perhaps
Hi everyone,
There's a few of us that have been having regular meetings every other
week over Skype to discuss test framework deployment (e.g. Selenium,
phpUnit, CruiseControl, etc).
The project page for this project is here:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Test_framework_deployment
The notes
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Siebrand Mazeland s.mazel...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Rob, you forgot to mention where/whom to ask to be invited for the Skype
call. I'm sure you'd not want those requests to go to the mailing list (I at
least wouldn't want them to).
Oops...sorry. Ask me directly.
Hi everyone,
I'm in the process of figuring out a series of proposals that will
help improve the usability of Pending Changes, in response to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_way_to_resolve_the_lingering_debate
One complaint that many people have with Pending Changes is
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 1:25 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Rob Lanphier wrote:
I've drafted this up here:
http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial/Reversion_collapsing
Would this require storing the checksums in the database or would this be
done dynamically on page
Hi Aryeh,
Thanks for bringing this topic up. It looks like its been a pretty
productive conversation so far, so I hope I don't ruin it. ;-)
Here's where I think you and I are on common ground. We seem to
disagree about magnitude (e.g. more vs all or less vs none),
but I think we can agree on
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.comsimetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
[Two reasons to relicense as part of breaking into libraries:]
a) To encourage reuse and
b) Avoid
On 8/26/10 6:46 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
On 27/08/10 03:57, Trevor Parscal wrote:
It got me thinking that [the CSSmin class] would be
pretty useful to non-MediaWiki projects too, but sadly we don't have a
history of sharing in this way...
You should put it in PEAR. Very few people
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:12 PM, lampak llam...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/08/10 22:45, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Oh, blech, FlaggedRevs reinvented the wheel and made up its own
autopromote system. At a glance, it looks
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/08/10 15:16, Rob Lanphier wrote:
We have a single collection point for all of our logging, which is
actually just a sampling of the overall traffic (designed to be
roughly one out of every 1000 hits
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the helpful reply. Comments inline:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Mark Bergsma m...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As already stated elsewhere, we didn't really saturate any NICs, just
some socket buffers. Because of the large number of configured log
pipes, the software
Hi everyone,
We're in the process of figuring out how we fix some of the issues in
our logging infrastructure. I'm both sending this email out to get
the more knowledgeable folks to chime in about where I've got the
details wrong, and for general comment on how we're doing our logging.
We may
Hi folks,
I wanted to highlight bug 24124, because there's a possible fix for it, and
I'm hoping we can get a lot of eyes on this one and then hopefully
fast-track it into production if that's possible.
Here's the link:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24124
The problem: diffs are
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
Ok, how about alternative D?
D:
1) Display diff between A1 and P1.
2) P1 is rejected. Nothing happens to the database at this point, the
rejection of P1 is just remembered somewhere.
3) Display a diff between A1
Hi everyone,
There is mounting demand for a reject button (or decline) in several
conversations about Pending Changes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Feedback#Unapprove_button
...along with a lot of confusion about unaccept:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 27 June 2010 19:48, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
For example, let's say that there are three pending revisions in the
queue.
That means there is the latest accepted revision (we'll call A1
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 27 June 2010 21:07, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The guidance for reviewing multiple edits
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing#Step-by-step_.22how-to.22_for_reviewing_multiple_edits
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 27 June 2010 21:07, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I suggest eliminating the option of review multiple
edits
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Again— I must ask where there is evidence that we are in need of tools
to increase the _speed_ of reversion actions on pages with pending
changes at the expense of the quality of those determinations? Feel
free to
Hi everyone,
Now that the pending changes work is well underway, I'm reviving this
thread. Below are replies to Neil, Roan, and Chad:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Neil Kandalgaonkar ne...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Just starting off the discussion, but am I right in assuming that this
is driven
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/6/10 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
This is a general note to all committers, since I keep seeing the same
question asked. Committers should never set their own revisions to
OK or RESOLVED. Even if you review
Hi everyone,
Sorry for the email length here. Here's my quick summary:
* Trying to figure out how to do good project management on Bugzilla,
working with the Bugzilla community to juice it up
* Failing that, we'd like to migrate off of it. Leading candidate: Redmine
* Wiki page:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:49 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
fwiw, I added a lot of time/project-management functionality to my
Bugzilla when I was using it in a commercial project. Some of the
desired functionality was already available as patches on
bugzilla.mozilla.org; I
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think [deploying the new FlaggedRevs to all wikis] makes any sense
at all. What I'd do is:
* Update FlaggedRevs_alpha to the desired state and check it on the labs
wikis
* Switch wikis from FlaggedRevs to
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/8 Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org:
So, now we've got two different options [for deploying FlaggedRevs]:
1. If it's even possible, figure out how to work around the message
cache
race condition [and deploy
Hi everyone,
Below is William's update on the Pending Changes (nee Flagged Protection)
trial launch on en.wikipedia.org on June 14. As we'll continue to stress:
this is a trial, and as such, still has a few rough edges, but we feel we're
ready to press forward and commit to iterative improvement
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I filed this in Bugzilla so that we have a place to keep track of the
feature request:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23796
Erik pointed me to some earlier thinking on this subject that's been
floating
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
Rob Lanphier wrote:
A full test pass with all of the different configurations isn't going to
be
possible, so some help with testing the different configurations would be
wonderful. We'll have a fast fallback plan
Hi Roan,
Thanks for looking into this! More below:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.comwrote:
The way I see this (and, mind you, I'm not a CSS ninja at all, just
someone with a more-than-basic knowledge of CSS), there's two ways to
solve this (assuming you
Hi everyone,
One thing we're struggling with right now is getting a chunk of the Flagged
Revs UI to look right. None of us working on Flagged Revs right now are CSS
gurus, and the people that we have at Wikimedia Foundation that are really
good with CSS are buried in other work, so we could
for the eventual commit.
Rob
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm preparing a patch against FlaggedRevs which includes changes that Howie
and I worked on in preparation for the launch of its deployment onto
en.wikipedia.org . We started
Hi everyone,
I'm preparing a patch against FlaggedRevs which includes changes that Howie
and I worked on in preparation for the launch of its deployment onto
en.wikipedia.org . We started first by creating a style guide describing
how the names should be presented in the UI:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.comwrote:
This was suggested on foundation-l by Chad, but I'll repeat it here:
reuse messages as little as possible. If you're using the word
foobar in two slightly different meanings and think other languages
might want to
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 23 May 2010 00:18, Rob Lanphier ro...@robla.net wrote:
It seems what you're suggesting is the following:
Step 1. Simply leave revreview-hist-basic as checked revision (or even
go
back to sighted revision
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@robla.net wrote:
I suppose in this case, there might be a simpler debate about which is a
better word: sighted, checked or accepted, since I think we
actually
Hi folks,
As of today, I'm working as a contractor at Wikimedia Foundation, helping
out with several things, one of which being the Flagged Revs rollout.
One thing I'm going to be helping William and the crew out with is working
out some of the unanswered questions in the description of the
Hi everyone!
Google earlier today announced the selected students for Google Summer of
Code 2010. We're happy to report we've received six students, listed here:
http://socghop.appspot.com/gsoc/org/home/google/gsoc2010/wikimedia
We had a lot of really great proposals this year, and a really
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Damon Wang damonw...@uchicago.edu wrote:
There's a few Python-based things that might be interesting, but I
think you'll get a lot more love for doing something in PHP or C.
Since this is a student internship, you shouldn't be bashful about
using this as
401 - 500 of 509 matches
Mail list logo
