Re: [Wikitech-l] Proposal to invest in Phabricator Calendar

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: >> That said, I think we should be careful with our assumptions about how >> much influence we can buy with the money we have. > > Sure. Let's not make assumptions at all then: what makes someone think that >

Re: [Wikitech-l] Proposal to invest in Phabricator Calendar

> That said, I think we should be careful with our assumptions about how > much influence we can buy with the money we have. Sure. Let's not make assumptions at all then: what makes someone think that calendar is amenable to WMF-mandated development? Already one year ago, I proposed that

[Wikitech-l] Introduction | GSoC Intern | Pywikibot Support for Thanks

Hello All, I am Sriharsh ( I go by the nick of darthbhyrava on IRC and on Phabricator), and this is a rather late introduction of myself. :P I am a second year undergrad pursuing a dual degree (B.Tech in Computer Science and MS in Computational Linguisitcs) course at IIIT-Hyderabad. I was

Re: [Wikitech-l] Proposal to invest in Phabricator Calendar

On 2016-05-16 21:03, Joel Aufrecht wrote: - what is the difference is between Wikimedia Requests and Upstreamed? Presumably Upstreamed just means that a task about it has been filed at https://secure.phabricator.com/ and there's a link to it on our task. -- Bartosz Dziewoński

Re: [Wikitech-l] Reviving SVG client-side rendering task

I'll note that wikipedia also currently uses the SVG systemLanguage option in a non-standard way which isn't supported by browsers: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T60920 So SVGs which use this feature would have to be blacklisted somehow and always rendered to PNG. --scott On Fri, May 13,

[Wikitech-l] Revision Scoring weekly update

Hey, Here is the weekly update for the Revision Scoring project for the week of May 9th through May 15th. *New developments:* - We do have a dedicated help page on how to request that we add support for new languages[1] - We deployed new version of revscoring and ORES, The biggest

Re: [Wikitech-l] Proposal to invest in Phabricator Calendar

As I understand it, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/phabricator-upstream/ is supposed to represent the complete, current list of WMF needs for Phabricator. So any discussion in this list should, in order to be re-usable in the future and fully transparent, be reflected in that list via, at

Re: [Wikitech-l] Reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Lukas Mezger wrote: > Yes, we're also looking into reducing the environmental impact of the rest > of the activities in the Wikimedia movement. And I am very aware that many > websites consume a lot more energy than Wikipedia does.

Re: [Wikitech-l] Proposal to invest in Phabricator Calendar

> If we're going to be investing money into improving Phabricator upstream... It's really good that we're having a healthy debate about the usability of Phabricator. I've enjoyed working with Phab a lot more than the tools that it has replaced, but it is by no means perfect. We have a role to

Re: [Wikitech-l] Linker::link() rewrite

+1 I don't think I ever used that function with actual html, but more than once I had to fiddle with escaping. I'm fairly sure it's hardly ever used with with html. Cheers, Marius On 16.05.2016 16:51, Chris Steipp wrote: Is there any way we can default to having the body of the link not

Re: [Wikitech-l] Linker::link() rewrite

Is there any way we can default to having the body of the link not be passed as html? It's called $html, well documented that it's raw html, and I've lost track of the number of times people pass unsanitized text to it. I'd rather it not be something developers have to worry about, unless they

Re: [Wikitech-l] Proposal to invest in Phabricator Calendar

It would also be nice to see spare funds spent on finishing the Bugzilla -> Phabricator conversion properly (it would build trust in our ability to pull of the other proposed transitions properly), see T687 (and other subtasks of T850). Although that would probably require local development, not

Re: [Wikitech-l] Proposal to invest in Phabricator Calendar

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:59:40PM +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: > On Sat, 2016-05-14 at 20:51 +0200, Ricordisamoa wrote: > > If we're going to be investing money into improving Phabricator  > > upstream, I think we should start with making Differential usable > > (i.e. a suitable replacement for

Re: [Wikitech-l] Reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement

Yes, we're also looking into reducing the environmental impact of the rest of the activities in the Wikimedia movement. And I am very aware that many websites consume a lot more energy than Wikipedia does. (Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact for more information.) But

[Wikitech-l] ArchCom-RFC status update: 2016-05-11

Hi everyone, The ArchCom-RFC status update from our previous Wednesday's ArchCom meeting is in the mail below. The dedicated wiki page was updated in a far more timely manner than this mailing list: - # Recent RFC meetings

Re: [Wikitech-l] Reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Tim Landscheidt wrote: > Lukas Mezger wrote: > >> With the help of Juliet Barbara and Gregory Varnum, we now have detailed >> public figures regarding the energy use and energy sources of the Wikimedia >> servers:

Re: [Wikitech-l] Reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Tim Starling wrote: > I think it's stretching the metaphor to call ops a "tight ship". We > could switch off spare servers in codfw for a substantial power > saving, in exchange for a ~10 minute penalty in failover time. But it > would