On 10/25/2012 03:48 AM, Mark Holmquist wrote:
On 10/22/2012 06:31 PM, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
Last year we decided not to participate in Google Code-In
https://www.google-melange.com/gci/document/show/gci_program/google/gci2012/help_page
, an outreach program to help us get more
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreach_Program_for_Women
I've signed us up to participate in the Outreach Program for Women
(administered by the GNOME Foundation), which provides paid internships
to women to work on our open source projects, January through March
2013. Wikimedia Foundation is
Hi Harsh!
On 11/04/2012 10:00 AM, Harsh Kothari wrote:
Hello all
I am Harsh Kothari from Gujarat, India. I want to contribute. I am
more active on Gujarati Wikipedia. More then 3k+ edits are there and
I have also made some wikibot scripts for doing various work on
Gujarati Wikipedia. I want to
Hi Quim
Thanks for your response. Now How can I fix this bug?
Harsh
---
Harsh Kothari
Research Fellow,
Physical Research Laboratory(PRL).
Ahmedabad.
On 05-Nov-2012, at 11:24 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
Hi Harsh!
On 11/04/2012 10:00 AM, Harsh Kothari wrote:
Hello all
I am Harsh Kothari from
I said last week that I would be releasing 1.20 today. Due to some
hiccups, I won't be able to do that. I'll work on the release tonight
and prep it for tomorrow.
Thank you for your patience,
Mark.
--
http://hexmode.com/
Any time you have one overriding idea, and push your idea as a
Hi,
I made the exact same argument a while back (Dropping the LATER resolution
in Bugzilla
http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/Dropping-the-LATER-resolution-in-Bugzilla-td743804.html
)
+1
D
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Quim Gil quim...@gmail.com wrote:
I was a bit of a lazy child, specially
How many of them depend on action from somebody else?
(eg. upstream fixing its tool)
Of course, if we are waiting for upstream, it should list the upstream
bug id, have upstream keyword, someone actually noticing when it's
fixed, etc. but those are form issues, not the status.
(and yes,
Personally, I like having a Postponed/Later resolution at least
available.
WONTFIX = We acknowledge this is a valid bug, but are choosing not to fix
it due to time and resources necessary to fix it. We will not be
revisiting this bug unless it is re-raised by others.
LATER = We acknowledge this
On 05/11/2012 16:02, Nabil Maynard wrote:
Personally, I like having a Postponed/Later resolution at least
available.
WONTFIX = We acknowledge this is a valid bug, but are choosing not to fix
it due to time and resources necessary to fix it. We will not be
revisiting this bug unless it is
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Trevor Parscal tpars...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I've supported this change for a very long time, glad to see it's on the
table.
+1
To quote James F. from the bug:
Code change merged and presumably will be deployed from wmf4 branch:
I suppose that depends on the particular project. From the sounds of it,
the discussion is about removing LATER as a resolution option across the
entire database, including some projects that do have specific people
driving development (some extensions, for instance). There is also
absolutely no
There are a few extensions that also follow the 'My' paradigm and should
be updated: LiquidThreads, EducationProgram, etc.
Ryan Kaldari
On 11/5/12 3:30 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Trevor Parscal tpars...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I've supported this change for a very
On 11/05/2012 03:02 PM, Nabil Maynard wrote:
WONTFIX = We acknowledge this is a valid bug, but are choosing not to fix
it due to time and resources necessary to fix it. We will not be
revisiting this bug unless it is re-raised by others.
LATER = We acknowledge this is a valid bug, and we agree
On 11/05/2012 09:58 AM, Harsh Kothari wrote:
Hi Quim
Thanks for your response. Now How can I fix this bug?
You can find information on how to contribute to mobile projects at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mobile_projects/Contribute
But that is a good question, and the fact that you ask it
On 11/03/2012 12:26 PM, Andre Klapper wrote:
Hi Quim,
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:36 -0700, Quim Gil wrote:
What Bugzilla metrics would you like to see in the monthly report?
Please have a look at
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Metrics#Drafting_Bugzilla_metrics
It's just a first
On Nov 5, 2012, at 11:54 PM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
How many of them depend on action from somebody else?
(eg. upstream fixing its tool)
Of course, if we are waiting for upstream, it should list the upstream
bug id, have upstream keyword, someone actually noticing when it's
On Nov 5, 2012, at 8:46 PM, Mark A. Hershberger m...@everybody.org wrote:
I said last week that I would be releasing 1.20 today. Due to some
hiccups, I won't be able to do that. I'll work on the release tonight
and prep it for tomorrow.
Thank you for your patience,
Mark.
Open
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
Date: Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:38 PM
Subject: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure
To: Staff All wmf...@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi folks,
consistent with Sue's narrowing focus mandate, I’ve been thinking
-1
There is an important difference between WONTFIX and LATER.
WONTFIX is something rejected because it's a bad idea, etc...
LATER is something rejected because there are technical reasons we can't
do it any time soon now. But in the future after some major even it's
possible that we can
Thanks Quim
I will solve the small bugs first. What is the procedure of solving bug? Can
you just show me to solve one bug? any small bug or any that you are currently
solving..
Thanks
Harsh
---
Harsh Kothari
Research Fellow,
Physical Research Laboratory(PRL).
Ahmedabad.
On 06-Nov-2012, at
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Quim Gil quim...@gmail.com wrote:
What about removing the LATER resolution from our Bugzilla? It feels like
sweeping reports under the carpet. If a team is convinced that something
won't be addressed any time soon then they can WONTFIX. If anybody feels
The latest in the outside world's OAuth saga for those interested in the
future of api authentication in MW.
http://hueniverse.com/2012/11/fuckoauth-realtimeconf/
--
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
___
Is this video about OAuth 2.0 only, or the original 1.0 as well?
--Tyler Romeo
*--*
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | tylerro...@gmail.com
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Daniel Friesen
It's got bits on the issues in OAuth 1 as well.
In fact it had some interesting tidbits I never heard of before.
For example. Apparently the reason that signatures sucked so badly in
OAuth 1 doing lots of crazy things with query parameters. Was because one
of the requirements of OAuth 1 was
24 matches
Mail list logo
