On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:35:24AM +1100, Tim Starling wrote:
On 13/12/11 01:36, Teofilo wrote:
Let us stop asking users to individually tag every wrong picture! Let
us have some developers create a tool to find wrong pictures and
rotate them back to their original orientation!
We could
On 20/12/11 12:50, Kim Bruning wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:35:24AM +1100, Tim Starling wrote:
On 13/12/11 01:36, Teofilo wrote:
Let us stop asking users to individually tag every wrong picture! Let
us have some developers create a tool to find wrong pictures and
rotate them back to
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:52 PM, David Richfield
davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote:
What effect would a less aggressive tone have had? Would you have
been more likely to convince your audience? less likely to alienate
people?
It's a fair point. I think part of the problem is that people are
On 13/12/11 02:55, David Gerard wrote:
On 12 December 2011 15:26, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
It's been a requested feature for a while, Someone finally got around
to writing it (I believe it needed the Improved metadata handling
backend first) and implementing it, It wasn't a
The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
1 - Bug or feature ? It is a bug.
2 - The human bug
3 - The technical bug
4 - Unexhaustive list of related talks
1 - Bug or feature ? It is a bug.
Look at
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
1 - Bug or feature ? It is a bug.
... snip ...
It is somehow intentional, because it seems that the devs have
suddenly decided that the exif orientation tag should be taken into
account, while in the past users used had to
The unrepentant attitude expressed above by K. Peachey increases the
need for clear excuses from the Wikimedia Foundation, expressing
clearly that something has gone wrong in the decision process, and
that the people who think the relationship between users-community and
developers the way K.
On 12 December 2011 15:26, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
It's been a requested feature for a while, Someone finally got around
to writing it (I believe it needed the Improved metadata handling
backend first) and implementing it, It wasn't a sudden oh lets write
this and enable it in
I am unable to find precise answers to your questions. But the scope
of the phenomenon can be somehow understood with the following data
which hint that today, the demand for rotation service has increased
about 56-fold compared to June 2011. But I am unable to say how long
the present high demand
On 12 December 2011 15:26, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing much went wrong in the planning of this feature,
Really?!
How is not having realised that this new feature would break 1000's of
images and preventing it not something going wrong in the planning?
(And yes, I mean break -
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:55 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
* How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously
wrongly rotated and were fixed by the feature?
* How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously
correctly rotated and were messed up by the
On 12 December 2011 18:18, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:55 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
* How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously
wrongly rotated and were fixed by the feature?
* How many existing uploads, used on the
On 12 December 2011 18:18, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Technically, nothing was messed up by the feature. Rather, the
software previously did not take EXIF rotation into account, and some
images had incorrect EXIF rotation information to begin with. Those
images are now shown in an
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
On 12 December 2011 18:18, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Technically, nothing was messed up by the feature. Rather, the
software previously did not take EXIF rotation into account, and some
images had incorrect EXIF rotation information to
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:12 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
What was messed up was the
presentation of images that were already displayed correctly.
Well, technically, they were displayed incorrectly. ;-) The image told
the software Please rotate me, and the software didn't. But
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The best place for further discussion of this issue is:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Rotation
And, lots more discussions here as well:
A thought to those posting in this thread (especially some of the
earlier posts):
What effect would a less aggressive tone have had? Would you have
been more likely to convince your audience? less likely to alienate
people?
This list often has too high a heat:light ratio. You can help fix
17 matches
Mail list logo
