Re: [Wikitech-l] Holding our code to better standards.

(I've put the TO: field as the QA list only, and put everyone else on BCC now. If you're curious in this topic, please join the QA mailing list and follow along. It's not a very high traffic list.) > Dear Greg, and anyone else that is involved in deployment Hi there :) > Awesome :) > The

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Le 02/09/2015 21:10, Matthew Flaschen a écrit : > Flow is not being killed. > > In addition to maintaining and supporting it, we'll soon be working on > rolling out a Beta feature to allow people to enable Flow on their user > talk pages. Thank you Matthew! From Danny original mail I thought

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

I'm speculating that an analogue for Flow's situation will be Echo's situation: somewhat maintained, but on the back burner for feature development. (Although I occasionally hear rumors of feature additions to Echo, and I think Echo might play well with improved discussion tools. I'd also like to

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Pine, given the questions at this point seem to be directed to the Collaboration team, with the intention of clarifying what their plans are, perhaps it would be best to encourage them to answer the questions rather than continue the speculation. Danny, perhaps you could take the lead on

[Wikitech-l] Jenkins upgrade Sep. 7th 8:00am UTC

Hello, Zeljko and I will upgrade Jenkins on Monday Sept 7th at 8:00am UTC (10:00am CET). There will be roughly half an hour downtime. Zuul will keep queueing the changes and trigger the jobs whenever Jenkins comes back up. In case of crazy side effect, we will revert back to the current

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Brian Wolff wrote: > > I seriously doubt any form of technology will solve the problem of > independent groups with overlapping interests discussing things in > multiple venues. > > My reading of the original email is that they want to work on

Re: [Wikitech-l] QA: Holding our code to better standards.

> In the services team, we found that prominent coverage metrics are a very > powerful motivator for keeping tests in order. We have set up 'voting' > coverage reports, which fail the overall tests if coverage falls, and make > it easy to check which lines aren't covered yet (via coveralls). In

[Wikitech-l] Rotating pictures idea

I talked to Charlotte SH Jensen at the National Museum in Copenhagen yesterday. We've been talking and doing stuff for several years, so we have a huge backlog of ideas that didn't work, but we're still able to find new things to do. One idea that came up yesterday is rotating pictures on

Re: [Wikitech-l] "Try the free Wikipedia app" banners

On 4 September 2015 at 20:12, Brandon Harris wrote: > So it seems to me that the apps are not required to fulfill the > mission. They feel like distractions, and - quite possibly - negatives to > the mission (in that we can't convert Readers into Editors through

Re: [Wikitech-l] "Try the free Wikipedia app" banners

> On Sep 2, 2015, at 3:53 PM, Toby Negrin wrote: > 1. We're moving people from an open platform to a closed platform: I think > this is an oversimplification of the situation -- as has been noted before, > the android app is 100% open source and while the data is not, in

Re: [Wikitech-l] Rotating pictures idea

Cool! This sort of thing can definitely be rigged up with some JavaScript, with a fallback to showing just one base image. -- brion On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen wrote: > I talked to Charlotte SH Jensen at the National Museum in Copenhagen >

[Wikitech-l] Code of Conduct: Intro, Principles, and Unacceptable behavior sections

There is consensus at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft#Next_steps that the best way to finalize the CoC draft is to focus on a few sections at once (while still allowing people to comment on other ones). This allows progress without requiring people

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Flow is going to be one of the extensions that the Collaboration team maintains, along with Echo and Thanks. "Not in active development" means that we're not going to build or change features, but we're going to fix bugs and make sure that people who are using Flow have a good experience with it.

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Thanks for the expanded update. I'm a big fan of Echo and am happy to hear that global notifications are coming. If you'll be at WikiConference USA, I'd appreciate a chance to talk with you there in person, and others might as well! Pine On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Danny Horn

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Also Corss-wiki watchlists are good place to start. Best On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 2:35 AM Pine W wrote: > Thanks for the expanded update. > > I'm a big fan of Echo and am happy to hear that global notifications are > coming. > > If

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On 4 September 2015 at 01:38, Ricordisamoa wrote: > Il 04/09/2015 01:24, Brandon Harris ha scritto: >>> On Sep 3, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Ricordisamoa >>> wrote: >>> I appreciate the acknowledgement of failure. >> I don't think

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On 9/3/15, Brian Wolff wrote: >>> >>> >>> This sounds a lot like PageTriage, which at best was a mixed success. >>> I hope the team is able to extract lessons from that extension and >>> apply them to whatever they intend to work on. >>> >> >> "at best was a mixed success"

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Re-reading the original email, it sounds to me like Flow is being put into maintenance mode, not killed. It also sounds to me like the resources that were being invested in Flow are going to be redirected to "the curation, collaboration, and admin processes that take place on a variety of pages.

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Regarding specific resource-level commitments: I've always had a hard time with getting project-level financial data from WMF. I'm still waiting for replies to questions that I asked about the Annual Plan a couple of months ago. I do think that information like that should be public, and it would

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On 9/4/15, Pine W wrote: > Re-reading the original email, it sounds to me like Flow is being put into > maintenance mode, not killed. It also sounds to me like the resources that > were being invested in Flow are going to be redirected to "the curation, > collaboration, and

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

I don't think putting a $$ value on it is necessary to answer David's question (Or even sufficient from a user perspective). The core of it is: *Will anyone (from WMF) be coding any new features, that don't exist yet. *Will features that half work or are currently in the process of being

Re: [Wikitech-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Yes and no on the first point. Aggregation tools would be helpful. Admittedly it's rare to have discussions spill into so many venues, so ROI is questionable on an investment like that. On more structured discussions, yes, those could be made easier to handle. Maybe it would be better to handle