On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Roland Unger
roland.un...@soziologie.uni-halle.de wrote:
we bought wikivoyage.com in September to transfer it to
the WMF. Since October 7, 2012 it is hosted at Hetzner
and shows to our association's servers.
Hi Roland,
yes, I'm aware - but it'd be good to
On 28/11/12 08:52, Erik Moeller wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/11/12 12:45, Sébastien Santoro wrote:
What would you suggest exactly? Than wikivoyage.com is transfered to
the fundation and redirect to wikivoyage.org, like we do with
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I don't think you would need to ban people not in your group from
touching those fields. You only need to take into account who said that
as well as what they said.
Even when having a shared meaning, it doesn't hold
On Nov 27, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 17:36 -0800, James Forrester wrote:
On 26 November 2012 17:25, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Timeframes seem like a pretty good proxy for priority. If something
is highest priority, and
On 27/11/12 11:45, Sébastien Santoro wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Neil Harris n...@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
I visited en.wikivoyage.com by mistake, and dicocvered that
en.wikivoyage.com appears to serve up Wikivoyage-old's content, but from
188.40.41.16, which whois
-- Forwarded message --
From: Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
Date: Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:49 PM
Subject: Wikimedia/mapping event in Europe early next year?
To: map...@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi folks,
it's been a long time coming, but we're finally gearing up for putting
some
I visited en.wikivoyage.com by mistake, and dicocvered that
en.wikivoyage.com appears to serve up Wikivoyage-old's content, but from
188.40.41.16, which whois identifies as being in the netblock
HETZNER-RZ10 operated by Hetzner Online AG.
The wikivoyage.com domain itself has a last-modified
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Neil Harris n...@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
I visited en.wikivoyage.com by mistake, and dicocvered that
en.wikivoyage.com appears to serve up Wikivoyage-old's content, but from
188.40.41.16, which whois identifies as being in the netblock HETZNER-RZ10
In the meanwhile, in such cases, it's useful to add the domain to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Live_mirrors and also to the Internal
wiki relevant page
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=747627oldid=441648 (or
whatever page replaced it).
Nemo
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 17:36 -0800, James Forrester wrote:
On 26 November 2012 17:25, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Timeframes seem like a pretty good proxy for priority. If something
is highest priority, and yet is not on track to be completed for
several months, then.wait,
On 27 November 2012 16:39, Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I propose adding a *new* priority called Immediate which should only
be used to mark really urgent stuff to fix. This priority would be added
above the existing Highest priority.
Has anyone suggested a separate urgency
Hi Arthur,
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 14:54 -0700, Arthur Richards wrote:
I don't think 'importance' should necessarily map to a timeframe for
resolution - at least not one that is set in stone.
With regard to the wider picture, the confusing and partially unclear
concept severity vs priority vs
On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 16:49 +, David Gerard wrote:
Has anyone suggested a separate urgency parameter?
I don't think adding another parameter in the user interface improves
anything. We have already Priority, Severity, Target milestone
and blocker bugs that are all used to somehow express
On 27/11/2012 09:55, Andre Klapper wrote:
On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 16:49 +, David Gerard wrote:
Has anyone suggested a separate urgency parameter?
I don't think adding another parameter in the user interface improves
anything. We have already Priority, Severity, Target milestone
and blocker
On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 17:39 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote:
I propose adding a *new* priority called Immediate which should only
be used to mark really urgent stuff to fix. This priority would be added
above the existing Highest priority.
1) Look at the current distribution of priorities at
On 27 November 2012 17:09, Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2) Look at our priority definitions in
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bugzilla/Fields#Priority
a) normal means Should be fixed by the next release.[1]
This is extremely unrealistic with above usage of Normal.
You may be
Rob and Andre, I hear what you're saying. I think I've always had a lack of
clarity around the meanings of priority/urgency/severity/whatever in
bugzilla, and it sounds like I'm not alone :p. That said, I still do not
think timeframes are a good proxy for priority (a la James' example). I
think of
Le 27/11/12 17:49, David Gerard a écrit :
On 27 November 2012 16:39, Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I propose adding a *new* priority called Immediate which should only
be used to mark really urgent stuff to fix. This priority would be added
above the existing Highest priority.
On 27/11/12 12:45, Sébastien Santoro wrote:
What would you suggest exactly? Than wikivoyage.com is transfered to
the fundation and redirect to wikivoyage.org, like we do with
wikipedia.com?
That seems the appropiate route.
___
Wikitech-l mailing
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/11/12 12:45, Sébastien Santoro wrote:
What would you suggest exactly? Than wikivoyage.com is transfered to
the fundation and redirect to wikivoyage.org, like we do with
wikipedia.com?
That seems the appropiate
On 27/11/12 19:26, Arthur Richards wrote:
After thinking about this some more, I realized that my reaction to the
proposal in part came from feeling apprehensive about external forces
defining bug priorities/resolution timelines, and thereby defining how a
team must respond to issues in
On 27 November 2012 21:58, rexx r...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
The ability to turn this on or off for your browser is unfortunately hidden
away in a tab in the 'Filter preferences ...' of ABP. There's also an
individual whitelist there. It's probably worth reading the developer's blog
at
Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...]
So in a mysterious future not that far away, I'd like to merge Normal
and Low, or Low and Lowest priorities.
Combined with a new Immediate priority as proposed above (quoting
myself), we would keep the same number of priorities, but we'd
23 matches
Mail list logo
