On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Gergo Tisza <[email protected]> wrote: > You can load the file description page with an action=purge URL parameter, > that will delete all thumbnails of that image and they will have to be > re-rendered the next time you look at them. > (Or you can just change 300px to 299px which is probably not used anywhere > so all images will have to be rendered when you first open them.)
I think the purge option is better. Pushing that change will take time and add unnecessary load on the servers. I could make my observations by purging and testing. Thanks! On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Quiddity <[email protected]> wrote: > You and Jorm and I had discussed using 220px. You mentioned this patch's > comment as the reason to use 300px > https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/109878/22/js/popup.js What dark magic was used to obtain this information? Teach me, master. On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Quiddity <[email protected]> wrote: > Unless/until the vast majority of our images are thumbnailed at 300px, I'd > recommend using 220px in Hovercards. 220px would become too small. We are maintaining a width and font size to improve readability. As more Hovercards are shown and more images get cached we'll face this less often, thus, I am not too worried. It turned out that bug was a false alarm, the image didn't show up even after the delay due to another bug [1]. Thanks everyone for your help, this will help me test the performance of the extension. --prtksxna [1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/63207 _______________________________________________ Multimedia mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
