On 18 March 2018 at 10:56, Isarra Yos wrote:
>
> There are also some problems that need addressing down the road: that I'm
> not sure how safe it is for caching and the like to just go moving
> images/css files around willy-nilly, that there are no 'standard' skin
> practices
I have just been informed that Modern works by extending
MonoBookTemplate. This is a problem.
-I
On 18/03/18 00:56, Isarra Yos wrote:
I'm refactoring MonoBook, starting with MonoBookTemplate. The current
change gets rid of the entire immediate print/html soup approach and
instead assembles a
I'm refactoring MonoBook, starting with MonoBookTemplate. The current
change gets rid of the entire immediate print/html soup approach and
instead assembles a giant string and prints that in one statement at the
end. See: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/420154/ and
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018, 18:16 Chico Venancio, wrote:
> Alex Monk wrote:
> I don't think the communities actually want js injected without code-review
> that much. They (we) do want to have easy access to gadget and scripts
> though.
> Attempting to impose any procedure
Pine wrote:
> I hope that there is way that these suggestions are being tracked but I
> don't see a public task for this on the Security workboard, possibly to
> avoid announcing vulnerabilities in public until they have been assessed.
There is the https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T71445 that
You'd have to stop stewards from loading site-wide JS, gadgets, as well as
removing their ability to have their user JS from pulling in JS from other
sites/users/etc. somehow.
Trying to restrict it would probably lead to a backlash from communities
that would make superprotect look like a joke. I
Musikanimal, that sounds like a good suggestion to add to Phabricator.
I hope that there is way that these suggestions are being tracked but I
don't see a public task for this on the Security workboard, possibly to
avoid announcing vulnerabilities in public until they have been assessed.
Unless