I raised a new bug which is hopefully more focused about the issues here:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58462
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2013/12/12 Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org
On 12/11/2013 11:21 AM, Chad wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
I raised a new bug which is hopefully more focused about the issues here:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58462
That strikes me as a RESOLVED INVALID bug, considering global gadgets
don't actually exist yet.
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:40:35 +0100, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
I raised a new bug which is hopefully more focused about the issues here:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58462
That
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bartosz Dziewoński matma@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:40:35 +0100, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
I raised a new bug which is hopefully more focused about
Jon Robson wrote:
I raised a new bug which is hopefully more focused about the issues here:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58462
Thank you for filing this bug.
Improving gadget code may be outside the scope of Bugzilla as it's more of
a policy/social question rather than a
Reading this thread and thinking about the proposed changes, im getting
stuck, and there may be some inconsistencies. The problems identified seem
to be
1. Core development is made much harder because of an abundance in local
differences in wikis caused by local js and css.
2. Local wikis
Στις 11-12-2013, ημέρα Τετ, και ώρα 23:01 -0500, ο/η MZMcBride έγραψε:
...
The idea being proposed in bug 58236, as it was framed, was a non-starter.
It simply riled people up and caused them to become defensive. (Its
sibling bugs didn't help.) However, if we re-frame the issue, I think many
I totally agree with Liangent. Having gadgets disabled by default will
move a larger number of scripts to Common.js, leading to a whole new
class of problems.
Strainu
2013/12/9 Liangent liang...@gmail.com:
MediaWiki:Common.js can also create disagreement and defaults change
without notice.
On 12/12/13, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
Reading this thread and thinking about the proposed changes, im getting
stuck, and there may be some inconsistencies. The problems identified seem
to be
1. Core development is made much harder because of an abundance in local
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
I actually feel the opposite. Point #1 does not make core development
much harder. There's the occasional issue with local customization,
but in my experience these types of issues are few and far between.
Point #2 does
2013/12/12 Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org
On 12/11/2013 11:21 AM, Chad wrote:
Sending wiki edits to Gerrit for review? Absolutely not.
I'm totally cool with the idea of code review for Gadgets so forth,
just
not
using Gerrit. We considered it for Scribunto (and heck, I wrote half of a
I can see both sides of the argument here and just wanted to provide my
thoughts on this matter. The short version is basically this: Keep gadgets
for experiment, but ensure global gadgets are held to a higher standard of
quality and made more visible to a wider audience.
As a developer the
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
Many a time I've talked about this I've hit the argument that gerrit is
confusing to some users and is a barrier for development, but this is a
terrible unacceptable attitude to have in my opinion. Our end users deserve
a
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
Many a time I've talked about this I've hit the argument that gerrit is
confusing to some users and is a barrier for development, but this is a
terrible unacceptable attitude to have in my opinion. Our end users deserve
a
On 11/12/13 19:21, Chad wrote:
Sending wiki edits to Gerrit for review? Absolutely not.
I'm totally cool with the idea of code review for Gadgets so forth, just
not
using Gerrit. We considered it for Scribunto (and heck, I wrote half of a
proof
of concept) but shot it down because the idea
On 12/11/13, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
Many a time I've talked about this I've hit the argument that gerrit is
confusing to some users and is a barrier for development, but this is a
terrible unacceptable
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
I can definitely understand the reasoning behind this. Right now with both
Gadgets and common.js we are allowing non-reviewed code to be injected
directly into every page. While there is a bit of trust to be had
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
I would expect any sort of code review requirement for
gadgets to meet strong resistance, especially on the smaller wikis.
Unless it was the community doing code review on itself, maybe. To
some extent this already happens on
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
One of the primary reasons gadgets/local-js exist is because local
wiki-admins feel that the mediawiki code review process is unavailable
to them. I would expect any sort of code review requirement for
gadgets to meet
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case we should promptly work to fix this issue. To be honest, the
only difficult part of our code review process is having to learn Git if
you do not already know how to use it. If there were a way to submit
On 12/11/13, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
One of the primary reasons gadgets/local-js exist is because local
wiki-admins feel that the mediawiki code review process is unavailable
to them. I would expect any sort
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess I should have said without banning [[MediaWiki:Common.js]]. I
was kind of assuming this proposal meant banning all site wide js
(Since otherwise what's the point of banning default on gadgets?
Default on gadgets is
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 21:30:15 +0100, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case we should promptly work to fix this issue. To be honest, the
only difficult part of our code review process is having to learn Git if
you do not already know how to use it. If there were a way to submit
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess I should have said without banning [[MediaWiki:Common.js]]. I
was kind of assuming this proposal meant banning all site wide js
(Since
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to say this one final time, since I'm feeling like a broken
record today...
We are not going to use Gerrit for gadgets and so forth. It is the
*wrong* tool for the job. Full stop.
Gerrit is a code review tool.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to say this one final time, since I'm feeling like a broken
record today...
We are not going to use Gerrit for gadgets and so forth.
As both an active gadget writer (on pl.wikipedia) and a core developer, let me
say that while I would *love* to have a somewhat formalized code-review process
for gadgets, it is pretty much not possible, and the reason is twofold.
First, code-review is, apart from spotting bugs, about getting
Bartosz Dziewoński wrote:
I really liked what Jon said at the beginning, and what has apparently
been lost in the discussions already – Keep gadgets for experiment, but
ensure global gadgets are held to a higher standard of quality and made
more visible to a wider audience.. Proper global gadgets
+1 to everything MZM said.
Except the XSS in user/site/gadget JS vs core/extension XSS. Intuition
tells me the former is much more common. We just think about core/extension
XSS because it gets a security release and tons of attention.
-Chad
On Dec 11, 2013 8:01 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com
Hoi,
A blanket ban like this is an extremely bad idea. The notion that you
should think twice before you make something a default option does have
merit.
Gadgets, java script all provide functionality that is sometimes / often
experimental. Without the benefit of experiments we will get into a
I think the bug is sufficiently killed at this point, so I wanted to add my
$.02 here instead of there.
As hoo mentioned on the bug, there have been some gadgets that have opened
up some serious security and performance issues, so I can sympathize with
Jared wishing they didn't exist at times.
In the Hebrew Wikipedia it's pretty straightforward: A proposal is made at
the Village Pump-like page, people bring up arguments for and against, and
if there are no strong arguments against, an administrator makes the gadget
default after a few days.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע
On 12/10/2013 01:04 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
In the Hebrew Wikipedia it's pretty straightforward: A proposal is made at
the Village Pump-like page, people bring up arguments for and against, and
if there are no strong arguments against, an administrator makes the gadget
default after a few
For wider discussion
---
From: bugzilla-daemon at wikimedia.org
Subject: [Bug 58236] New: No longer allow gadgets to be turned on by
default for all users on Wikimedia
siteshttp://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3cbug%2d58236%2d3%40https.bugzilla.wikimedia.org%2f%3e
Newsgroups:
MediaWiki:Common.js can also create disagreement and defaults change
without notice.
Actually what I did sometimes is to move code from MediaWiki:Common.js to
default gadgets, so it can be disabled per user (for example, some users
are using a too slow computer or network), and at the same time,
Yep, that's what I did too a year a two ago. Since some parts of front-end
code work quite differently in Common.js and gadgets, it's bettet to put
modular stuff (esp. ones that users would like to opt-out of) in gadgets.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Liangent liang...@gmail.com wrote:
36 matches
Mail list logo
