On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:50 PM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
… which seems to be a little harsh on the mobile and tablet fronts, and
overly-
generous on the MSIE side given their exceptional costs to support per
%age of
users, but not too terrible.
I worry less about it
Correction. I was looking at the total Other/Unknown. Opera is actually
4.66%
--tomasz
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Tomasz Finc tf...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:50 PM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote:
… which seems to be a little harsh on the
Something that seems to be being partially considered in these models
is browser shares that are growing or shrinking.
For instance it would make more sense to me to support IE10 than IE7
even if IE7 has a far greater market share this month. If significant
work is needed for IE7, it might have
On Nov 26, 2012 9:17 PM, Luke Welling lwelling
lwell...@wikimedia.org@lwell...@wikimedia.org
wikimedia.org lwell...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Something that seems to be being partially considered in these models
is browser shares that are growing or shrinking.
For instance it would make more sense
On 20 November 2012 17:19, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote:
TL;DR: We're proposing a more formal, but more limited, statement of browser
'support' for the cluster; thoughts appreciated.
To clarify this a little more, as I think a little of the nuance has been
getting lost in the
On 11/20/2012 05:19 PM, James Forrester wrote:
* Desktop: Current and immediately-previous versions of Chrome, Firefox,
MSIE and Safari
* Tablet: Current versions of iOS/Safari; Current and immediately-previous
ones of Android
* Mobile: Current versions of iOS/Safari; Current and the five
On 20 November 2012 19:53, Faidon Liambotis fai...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:19:51PM -0800, James Forrester wrote:
In WMF Engineering, we've been struggling with what we mean by 'supporting'
browsers, and how we can match limited developer time to our natural desire
On 20 November 2012 20:00, Faidon Liambotis fai...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:46:22PM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
Current and immediately-previous releases are also really hard to match
up between projects on fast release cycles (like Chrome and Firefox which
are pushing
On 20 November 2012 22:12, Leslie Carr lc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I hate to make our job more difficult, but I think Faidon had a good point --
Quote
Agreed. IE 9 is only supported from Vista onwards and Windows XP is
21.29% of our user base according to the latest stats¹. I'm not sure
it's
On 21/11/2012 08:41, Quim Gil wrote:
On 11/20/2012 05:19 PM, James Forrester wrote:
* Desktop: Current and immediately-previous versions of Chrome, Firefox,
MSIE and Safari
* Tablet: Current versions of iOS/Safari; Current and
immediately-previous
ones of Android
* Mobile: Current versions of
On 20 November 2012 23:54, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
I think a best of both worlds would be preferable. I haven't seen the
stats, but I'd assume market share of IE 10 will be quite low. Still it
would be silly to not strive to support it.
Well, until this month IE 10
On 21 November 2012 07:41, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
What types of problems are giving you a hard time keeping the support?
Newest versions of browsers can be as painful to support as legacy ones, but
the types of problems are probably very different.
Are we talking about bugs in the
On 21 November 2012 09:32, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, the rather limited proposed support was a little surprising to me -
I would have expected at least some effort toward supporting anything in the
billions of hits per month.
Our 20 bn page hits a month overall means over
On 11/20/2012 05:19 PM, James Forrester wrote:
There would be a top level outline policy - a small number
of browsers are supported (i.e., WMF will keep spending money until they
work):
Anything not in this list may happen to work but WMF Engineering will not
spend resources (read, developer
So, the new proposal:
There would be a top level outline policy - a small number
of browsers are supported (i.e., WMF will keep spending money until they
work):
* Desktop: Current and immediately-previous versions of Chrome, Firefox,
MSIE and Safari
* Tablet: Current versions of
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Gabriel Wicke gwi...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
This does complicate matters a bit for product, as decisions in this
area are very dependent on technical detail and differ from case to
case. It would however be sad to see more manpower in product to result
in less
GOn Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 09:17:24AM -0800, James Forrester wrote:
Those numbers are people using Windows XP, not people using Windows XP
with IE. I believe the numbers for (XP IE) are going to be
substantially lower - probably half - but still far to high to
discount.
Doh, my bad.
2012/11/21 James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org:
I dunno, perhaps I'm just biased because none of the browsers I use even
made the list, but different browsers can support different hardware very
differently...
Indeed. Which browsers would you like to see added?
I'm going to assume
On 21 November 2012 11:54, Faidon Liambotis fai...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The real reason is that you want Windows XP support, so you might just
as well put that in the rules, instead of extrapolating from the
browser's platform support. Also, do note another thing from the other
sub-thread:
On 11/21/2012 11:33 AM, Steven Walling wrote:
I was going to go on a long rant here in response to your assertion that we
shouldn't have a flashy interface, but I'll spare everyone and just say
that I strongly disagree.
I am not opposed to having a flashy interface at all and did not assert
Throwing in my 10 cents on the matter.
I was going to go on a long rant here in response to your assertion that we
shouldn't have a flashy interface, but I'll spare everyone and just say
that I strongly disagree.
I am not opposed to having a flashy interface at all and did not assert
anything
Whether it be a targeted list of browsers, a list of browsers we explicitly
ignore, or something else entirely, anything that helps us balance
engineering resources is a good thing.
In 2010 I suggested a rule, which became somewhat of a policy, that WMF
won't spend time/money supporting browsers
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 20 November 2012 23:54, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
I think a best of both worlds would be preferable. I haven't seen the
stats, but I'd assume market share of IE 10 will be quite low.
If I want to do things on Wikipedia from Lynx [0] I should
be able to do as much as Lynx supports, not less because my useragent doesn't
match something that we support.
Also if we cut lynx support Jidini will come and kill us in our sleep.
Dead developers = productivity loss
;)
-
On a
On 21/11/12 18:33, James Forrester wrote:
On 20 November 2012 23:54, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
I think a best of both worlds would be preferable. I haven't seen the
stats, but I'd assume market share of IE 10 will be quite low. Still it
would be silly to not strive to support it.
Well, until
2012/11/21 James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org:
So, the new proposal:
There would be a top level outline policy - a small number
of browsers are supported (i.e., WMF will keep spending money until they
work):
* Desktop: Current and immediately-previous versions of Chrome, Firefox,
slightly ot
Actually … I had firefox 17 months ago. And I'm up to release 20 now.
Mozilla pushes their pre-beta (dubbed aurora - generally 2 releases forward)
at [0] , and their nightly build (funnily enough, dubbed nightly - generally
4 releases forward) at [1]. They're less stable, but
All,
*TL;DR: We're proposing a more formal, but more limited, statement of
browser 'support' for the cluster; thoughts appreciated.*
In WMF Engineering, we've been struggling with what we mean by 'supporting'
browsers, and how we can match limited developer time to our natural desire
to make
If this plan is implemented, I'd recommend still testing with older
browsers rather than just saying it may happen to work or not.
--Tyler Romeo
On Nov 20, 2012 8:20 PM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote:
All,
*TL;DR: We're proposing a more formal, but more limited, statement of
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:19 PM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
So, the new proposal:
There would be a top level outline policy - a small number
of browsers are supported (i.e., WMF will keep spending money until they
work):
* Desktop: Current and immediately-previous
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:19:51PM -0800, James Forrester wrote:
In WMF Engineering, we've been struggling with what we mean by 'supporting'
browsers, and how we can match limited developer time to our natural desire
to make everyone happy.
snip
So, to turn this mass of text into an 'ask', I
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:46:22PM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
Current and immediately-previous releases are also really hard to match
up between projects on fast release cycles (like Chrome and Firefox which
are pushing out new major versions every couple months) and those where
major versions
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:19 PM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
*TL;DR: We're proposing a more formal, but more limited, statement of
browser 'support' for the cluster; thoughts appreciated.*
It's obviously good to take in to account the feedback Brion, Faidon, and
I'm sure
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:19 PM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote:
All,
*TL;DR: We're proposing a more formal, but more limited, statement of
browser 'support' for the cluster; thoughts appreciated.*
In WMF Engineering, we've been struggling with what we mean by 'supporting'
On Nov 21, 2012 7:13 AM, Leslie Carr lc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:19 PM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote:
All,
*TL;DR: We're proposing a more formal, but more limited, statement of
browser 'support' for the cluster; thoughts appreciated.*
In
35 matches
Mail list logo
