On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Brad Jorsch bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Liangent liang...@gmail.com wrote:
Is this enough?
api.php?action=queryprop=pagepropsppprop=disambiguationtitles=
One thing that would be nice would be the ability to go the other way.
2012/12/25 Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org
If you know any bot writers that are dealing with disambiguation pages, I
would love to know more about what their needs are specifically. Perhaps an
API could be added to the extension if it would be useful.
Forwarded to Pywikipedia-l.
--
Hi,
Someone once suggested we create a control panel for bots. I think the
first step would be to create a page where we could see overview of all
bots we are running on projects. If we create some protocol for querying
bot status we could create some central monitoring server which would
either:
Hi Peter,
what is the final purpose of this suggestion? What kind of problem do we
have that needs to be solved this way?
I think the first step to do anything with bots should be to store the bot
activity in tables other than recent changes so as to be able to mark them
in page histories. This
It would be first step to solve this:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34606
+ it would make it easier for bot operators to keep track of status of
their services as well for community to find out why certain service is no
longer available. For example if archiving bot crashes, the
In addition, we would have a reliable list of bots running on each wiki,
far better than what we have for example on english wiki now. In case some
bot would be down for a longer time, people would easily find that out and
some developer could overtake its task.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:42 AM,
I see. Sorry for having misspelled your name.
2012/12/27 Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com
In addition, we would have a reliable list of bots running on each wiki,
far better than what we have for example on english wiki now.
This needs to make compulsory in each wiki's bot policy to use this
For beginning it's definitely not needed to be compulsory. Whether the
communities will want to have this function reliable in future if it became
a standard or not is up to them. I don't really like idea of enforcing
anyone to anything, but it should be recommended at least to each bot
developer
It would be kind of same as nagios, just for bots, not servers
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
For beginning it's definitely not needed to be compulsory. Whether the
communities will want to have this function reliable in future if it became
a standard
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Liangent liang...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Brad Jorsch bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Liangent liang...@gmail.com wrote:
Is this enough?
api.php?action=queryprop=pagepropsppprop=disambiguationtitles=
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
You can count me in as interested. I can't add my name on my own, though,
since I'm IP blocked from editing on WMF wikis.
Please request an IP exemption.
Hi, following the process for requesting the creation of a
On 12/27/2012 07:38 AM, Sébastien Santoro wrote:
To create a bug squad is a nice idea, and, as a volunteer active on
Bugzilla, of course, I'm interested.
To create a MediaWiki Group Bug Squad is something else.
I fail to see why, and I really appreciate the fact that you are going
to the
Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be kind of same as nagios, just for bots, not servers
[...]
Could this then be realized just as Nagios plugins so that
we do not build a separate infrastructure for it?
Tim
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Hi,
I'm a bit confused when it comes to various options I have in gerrit and
it seems the docs are not up to date on that.
* What is the difference between Verified and Code Review? When would I
put +1 in one of them but -1 in the other?
* What is the difference between +1 and +2,
On 12/27/2012 01:18 PM, Juliusz Gonera wrote:
* What is the difference between Verified and Code Review? When would I
put +1 in one of them but -1 in the other?
I'm relatively new, but this is my understanding. Verified means you
actually tested it. Code Review means it looks good
* What is
Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...]
This is a dangerous precedents to a bureaucratization of our
fundamental processes. A group should be about a vision. My vision of
this proposal is I clearly see this proposal as the first step in a
path who will lead to a road, where we will ask new
To add to this:
Jenkins adds Verified+1 if the lint tests pass, or Verified-1 if they fail.
If the unit tests pass (If you're not on the whitelist, this will be once
someone gives it CodeReview+2) it will give the change Verified+2 or
Verified-2 if they fail.
Only some people (project owners,
On 12/27/2012 10:34 AM, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
I think the problem with some groups is that if you are not
in the group, you're not in the group. Do you need to join
the Bug Squad to squash bugs?
Of course not. You don't need to join the Browser Testing team to define
test cases, the
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/27/2012 07:38 AM, Sébastien Santoro wrote:
I don't see the bureaucratic burden you mention. The tough part of creating
a Bug Squad team is to recruit the people and keep them active as a team.
Formalize that as a
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Sébastien Santoro
dereck...@espace-win.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/27/2012 07:38 AM, Sébastien Santoro wrote:
I don't see the bureaucratic burden you mention. The tough part of creating
a Bug Squad team
On 12/27/2012 05:04 PM, Sébastien Santoro wrote:
So we're speaking about potential need to incorporation and potential
trademark agreements.
But this isn't a bureaucratic road. Okay...
It specifically says may be incorporated not must be incorporated.
MediaWiki groups may allow that kind of
On 12/27/2012 02:31 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 12/27/2012 05:04 PM, Sébastien Santoro wrote:
So we're speaking about potential need to incorporation and potential
trademark agreements.
But this isn't a bureaucratic road. Okay...
It specifically says may be incorporated not must be
On 11/14/2012 07:06 PM, Jim Laurino wrote:
Hello,
I attended a talk [1] by Elaine Weyuker [2] on Wed, 7 Nov 2012.
The talk, “Looking for Bugs In All the RIGHT Places”, discussed her work
on predicting where bugs would be found in the next release of a program
product.
She and her
TL;DR: A few ideas follow on how we could possibly help legit editors
contribute from behind Tor proxies. I am just conversant enough with
the security problems to make unworkable suggestions ;-), so please
correct me, critique suggest solutions, and perhaps volunteer to help.
The current
Do we have one extra machine left. Then we could set up this as NAT-Router.
This will replace another machine if we do not have one extra IP left. The
original ports need to be forwarded to that then.
Cheers
Marco
Original-Nachricht
Von: Leslie Carr lc...@wikimedia.org
On 12/07/2012 01:13 PM, Niklas Laxström wrote:
Now that tests need +2 to be run, at least temporarily, I'm going to
point out that I've not been able to run tests on my development
environment in ages. I mentioned broken unit tests in Oct 4 on this
list.
We have all these JavaScript documentation comments, but we're not
actually generating docs. This has been talked about before, e.g.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/wikitech/208357?do=post_view_threaded,
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40143,
I rather think that devs' time would be best spent ensuring that our
tools against Tor users and open proxies are effective and reliable.
Huge amounts of volunteers' time are spent combating abuse of them, with
inadequate tools.
See for instance:
Add to that list the underlying XFF blocking bug.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23343
Back on topic, is it necessary for good users seeking IP block exemption to
be checkusered? I doubt it.
IP block exemption is rarely given because it allows someone to keep
editing on their
On Dec 28, 2012 12:47 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Add to that list the underlying XFF blocking bug.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23343
Back on topic, is it necessary for good users seeking IP block exemption
to be checkusered? I doubt it.
IP block
30 matches
Mail list logo
