On 27/05/10 05:00, Chad wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
> people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
> it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
> releases (people seriously get confused that 1.10 come
In the extensions I've written, I've usually used the x.x.x naming
convention, similar to the MediaWiki core's. But in light of the comments
made in this conversation, I considered using integers. E.g. advance from
version 9 to version 10 rather than from 1.1.9 to 1.1.10, and thus avoid
confusion a
Hi Dan and Markus
I have added some troubleshooting tips, based on notes I took during the
Friday May 14 meeting, to the Selenium Framework page:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/SeleniumFramework#Working_example I think it
has the tip about port . My intent was to add information for problem
sol
Hi Dan,
There is a list of browsers compatible with Selenium (See
http://seleniumhq.org/about/platforms.html#browsers ). The page states that
Selenium works with Firefox 2+ when a Linux OS is used (I think Ubuntu would
fall under this category ).
I am using Firefox 3.5.9 on Ubuntu 9.10 . I have
On 5/26/2010 3:00 PM, Chad wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
> people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
> it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
> releases (people seriously get confused that 1.10 c
"Chad" wrote in message
news:aanlktimeplhm2o6_2-dkr5epkpt-pg2hr5qtcmsrf...@mail.gmail.com...
> Good afternoon,
>
> This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
> people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
> it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep do
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Chad wrote:
> To be honest I think we should remove it from everything. I
> know it requires practically zero work to maintain, but the
> longer it sits around the more people will be encouraged to
> stick with PHP4 and not move on. PHP in general has faced
> this
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Conrad Irwin wrote:
> On 26 May 2010 21:21, Lane, Ryan wrote:
>>> This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
>>> people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
>>> it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
>>> r
On 05/26/2010 12:12 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Chad wrote:
>> This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
>> people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted
>
> I'm fine with doing 1.x releases forever. It's worked for a lot of
> other projects, and i
Conrad Irwin wrote:
> Wouldn't removing 1.6 from the main page solve the problem for most
> newcomers? Only those who go down to the PHP 4 section of the
> downloads need ever know it exists and thus get the impression that it
> is an older version. Once they're no-longer newcomers, we can hope
> t
On 26 May 2010 21:21, Lane, Ryan wrote:
>> This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
>> people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
>> it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
>> releases (people seriously get confused that 1.10 comes after
> This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
> people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
> it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
> releases (people seriously get confused that 1.10 comes after
> 1.6). The following suggestions have been
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 21:00, Chad wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
> people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
> it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
> releases (people seriously get confused th
> This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
> people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
> it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
> releases (people seriously get confused that 1.10 comes after
> 1.6).
Hi Chad, thanks for that initiative
Peter17 wrote:
> I didn't set $wgUploadPath. Just $wgUseInstantCommons = true; The
> images URLs are actually transformed to remote URLs:
>
> I work on my own local wiki, which address is
> http://localhost/mediawiki/ and transcluding
> {{mediawikiwiki::User:Peter17}} which contains
> [[File:Exqui
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Chad wrote:
> This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
> people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
> it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
> releases (people seriously get confused that 1.10 comes afte
Good afternoon,
This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
releases (people seriously get confused that 1.10 comes after
1.6). The following suggestions hav
@peter: here a recent thread into MediaWiki-API ml about API and sections:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-api/2010-May/subject.html
No mention of labelled sections used by #lst exstesion ... :-( but
remember the name of ThomasV as a reference.
Alex
___
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 8:01 PM, wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
> I try to use MWDumper to import data, however, the importer only has two
> choise for Mysql and PostGreSQL. What I am supposed to do if I want import
> Wikipedia data into Oracle database?
>
Use maintenance/importDump.php
___
19 matches
Mail list logo
