On 31/01/11 13:51, Roan Kattouw wrote:
I can work around it in the extension, but we should watch out and make
sure
we've got regression tests covering any cases we find.
Yes, we need minifier tests.
Isn't this an upstream issue? If so we could send them our patches.
--
Ashar
There are 2 components to the JavaScriptDistiller library. One of them (the
ParseMaster class) is 100% in sync with the official distribution. The other
(the JavaScriptDistiller class) was originally based on the
JavaScriptPacker::_basicCompression function. That function had some issues
that
On 01/02/11 19:42, Trevor Parscal wrote:
In the former case, any changes should be strictly passed upstream.
In the latter case, I think we should offer them upstream but realize
that we have deviated from the original author's structure and
possibly intentions enough that they may or may not
Trevor Parscal wrote:
There are 2 components to the JavaScriptDistiller library. One of them (the
ParseMaster class) is 100% in sync with the official distribution. The other
(the JavaScriptDistiller class) was originally based on the
JavaScriptPacker::_basicCompression function. That
I was planning on emailing him a patch, probably after I wrote some tests to
ensure I wasn't submitting him something with issues.
- Trevor
On Feb 1, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Platonides wrote:
Trevor Parscal wrote:
There are 2 components to the JavaScriptDistiller library. One of them (the
2011/1/30 Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com:
I noticed a regression in the JS minification with a bit of sloppy
third-party code being imported through ResourceLoader in SVGEdit:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27046
Fixed now. The regex stripping C++-style // comments was also
I noticed a regression in the JS minification with a bit of sloppy
third-party code being imported through ResourceLoader in SVGEdit:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27046
I can work around it in the extension, but we should watch out and make sure
we've got regression tests
On 1/22/11 5:40 PM, Maciej Jaros wrote:
Just remember that people all over the world are hacking into Mediawiki
all the time. Making it harder won't help a bit.
I think minification is orthogonal to the hacking question.
I've said it before here but the key to enabling hackers is to have a
Michael Dale (2011-01-21 16:04):
On 01/21/2011 08:21 AM, Chad wrote:
While I happen to think the licensing issue is rather bogus and
doesn't really affect us, I'm glad to see it resolved. It outperforms
our current solution and keeps the same behavior. Plus as a bonus,
the vertical line
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Maciej Jaros e...@wp.pl wrote:
Great. Now I only need to tell the user to install Firefox, install
Firebug and some other addon, open the page in Firefox... Oh, wait. This
error does not occur in Firefox...
Please, I can live with folding new lines (thou I
2011/1/23 Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com:
Debugging JavaScript in today's browsers can at least pop up the live code
in context for you, and by sticking '?debug=false' on your URL, all our
minification will be conveniently gone from view, and the individual modules
easier to identify by hand.
I
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 21/01/11 12:46, Trevor Parscal wrote:
Joke or not, it's in there, and it's a violation of the GPL.
Did you try emailing the author and asking for a dual license?
I believe that people from Redhat have already
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sure, but Trevor is claiming that he wrote it because of the license
issue. Since he has publically ranted three times:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/50082
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is really unnecessary and unhelpful on a public mailing list. I
think we'd all be better off if snark like this were kept to private
channels.
Agreed. Or better yet, not said at all. Since we evidently no
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
This is really unnecessary and unhelpful on a public mailing list. I
think we'd all be better off if snark like this were kept to
On 21/01/11 23:21, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
This is really unnecessary and unhelpful on a public mailing list. I
think we'd all be better off if snark like this were kept to private
channels.
Agreed. Or better yet,
On 01/21/2011 08:21 AM, Chad wrote:
While I happen to think the licensing issue is rather bogus and
doesn't really affect us, I'm glad to see it resolved. It outperforms
our current solution and keeps the same behavior. Plus as a bonus,
the vertical line smushing is configurable so if we want
On 22/01/11 02:49, Aaron Schulz wrote:
This sounds like thinking out loud (not to say whether it's true or false).
It seems like there just has to be some better, more private, means to
discuss things like this...
Fair enough. Apologies to the list.
-- Tim Starling
For those of you who didn't see bug 26791, our use of JSMin has been
found to conflict with our GPL license. After assessing other options (
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26791#c8 ) Roan and I
decided to try and use the minification from JavaScriptPacker, but not
its overly
On 20 January 2011 22:13, Trevor Parscal tpars...@wikimedia.org wrote:
For those of you who didn't see bug 26791, our use of JSMin has been
found to conflict with our GPL license.
On behalf of all aspiring Dark Lords, may I thank the Wikimedia
Foundation for protecting our freedom to use
Trevor Parscal (2011-01-20 23:13):
For those of you who didn't see bug 26791, our use of JSMin has been
found to conflict with our GPL license. After assessing other options (
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26791#c8 ) Roan and I
decided to try and use the minification from
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:33 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 January 2011 22:13, Trevor Parscal tpars...@wikimedia.org wrote:
For those of you who didn't see bug 26791, our use of JSMin has been
found to conflict with our GPL license.
On behalf of all aspiring Dark Lords,
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Trevor Parscal tpars...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
For those of you who didn't see bug 26791, our use of JSMin has been
found to conflict with our GPL license.
Thank you for removing JSMin! Thou shall use mediawiki for evil! ;)
-Katie (@aude)
- Trevor (and
2011/1/21 Maciej Jaros e...@wp.pl:
Yes, I know I'm stubborn, but 6 bytes (0.6%)? Seriously? Doesn't seem
convincing to me and seems like it could at least use
$wgResourceLoaderMinifyJSHorizontalSpace (even if true by default).
Trevor probably didn't choose a very good test case. He also tested
Roan Kattouw (2011-01-21 00:50):
2011/1/21 Maciej Jarose...@wp.pl:
Yes, I know I'm stubborn, but 6 bytes (0.6%)? Seriously? Doesn't seem
convincing to me and seems like it could at least use
$wgResourceLoaderMinifyJSHorizontalSpace (even if true by default).
Trevor probably didn't choose a
On 21/01/11 09:13, Trevor Parscal wrote:
For those of you who didn't see bug 26791, our use of JSMin has been
found to conflict with our GPL license.
You're talking about the good not evil joke clause?
-- Tim Starling
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Joke or not, it's in there, and it's a violation of the GPL.
- Trevor
On 1/20/11 5:44 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
On 21/01/11 09:13, Trevor Parscal wrote:
For those of you who didn't see bug 26791, our use of JSMin has been
found to conflict with our GPL license.
You're talking about the good
2011/1/21 Trevor Parscal tpars...@wikimedia.org:
Joke or not, it's in there, and it's a violation of the GPL.
Plus the alternative is better anyway.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
As mentioned in the bug, it would be nice to have configurable support
for the closure-compiler as well ;) ( I assume Apache licence is
compatible? )
Has anyone done any tests to see if there are any compatibility issues
with SIMPLE_OPTIMIZATIONS with a google closure minification hook?
On 21/01/11 12:46, Trevor Parscal wrote:
Joke or not, it's in there, and it's a violation of the GPL.
Did you try emailing the author and asking for a dual license?
On 21/01/11 12:58, Roan Kattouw wrote:
Plus the alternative is better anyway.
Sure, but Trevor is claiming that he wrote it
iirc there are some issues with the Apache license in GPLv2. GPLv3
however is fine with the Apache license.
As for dropping JSMin... I never really liked Crockford anyways, nor
JSMin... so I don't really have any problem. I also don't like the idea
of maintaining what's essentially a local
31 matches
Mail list logo
