Ha! I'm cool with 'provenance' if no one objects. On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Andrew Otto <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oof, only that it is ugly! :) > > Can you just call it ‘provenance', or are you trying to be more future > proof? > > > > > > On Mar 4, 2015, at 12:11, Adam Baso <[email protected]> wrote: > > I pinged on Phabricator at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90606 about > modeling after that patch. That sort of approach should avoid cache > fragmentation. > > As for parameter name, 'wmfxan' is short and I think would avoid > collisions. Any problems with this parameter name? > > -Adam > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Nuria Ruiz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ping ... (regarding cache question) >> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Gergo Tisza <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Nuria Ruiz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 2. What about caching? >>>> Is this page:* http://wikipedia.org/BarackObama?some_param=some-value >>>> <http://wikipedia.org/BarackObama?some_param=some-value>* being served >>>> from the cache as it should be? >>>> >>> >>> The file download parameter was handled via this patch: >>> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/120617/ >>> Seems like an analogous scenario. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Analytics mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Analytics mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
