On Sun, 2013-02-24 at 18:06 -0800, James Forrester wrote:
On 24 February 2013 13:05, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 02/24/2013 06:41 AM, Siebrand Mazeland (WMF) wrote:
LQT has more than 200 open issues in bugzilla. 100+ are marked bug.
Report any bugs you find. I can't think of much else at the moment.
Alex Monk
On 24/02/13 05:02, maiki wrote:
On 02/23/2013 03:07 PM, Krenair wrote:
I'm trying to fix some of it's problems, but I need reviewers (who can
and are willing to +2):
Thanks for all your work on LQT so far, Alex. It's highly appreciated!
I just reviewed 10 of 12 open patch sets. I merged 8, don't agree with a
solution of one and have no opinion on another. One remaining was marked -1
already, the other ill probably get to one day soon.
LQT has more than 200
On 23/02/13 23:58, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
That is, I think it is safe to say LQT will remain usable in its current
state on any coming MW versions for the foreseeable future.
Right now, though, all I'm looking for is a confirmation that it will
remain usable. I imagine one of the first
On 24 February 2013 14:44, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/02/13 23:58, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
That is, I think it is safe to say LQT will remain usable in its current
state on any coming MW versions for the foreseeable future.
Right now, though, all I'm looking for is a
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 3:51 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 February 2013 14:44, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/02/13 23:58, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
That is, I think it is safe to say LQT will remain usable in its current
state on any coming MW versions
On 24 February 2013 15:22, Krinkle krinklem...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 3:51 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If it isn't being maintained against 1.19, then is there an exit
strategy? Is there a way to remove LQT while preserving the content
usably?
I'm not sure
On 02/24/2013 02:43 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Mark, your assumptions about LQT are blatantly wrong or in other words
it's just wishful thinking.
Ok, I can accept that.
But your next statement seems to contradict this.
Here is what I thought I said:
given where LQT is used (some WMF
On 02/24/2013 06:41 AM, Siebrand Mazeland (WMF) wrote:
LQT has more than 200 open issues in bugzilla. 100+ are marked bug.
There are bug management slots available at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/QA/Weekly_goals
Are there people interested in getting involved in a LQT Bug Day, in a
QA
On 24 February 2013 13:05, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 02/24/2013 06:41 AM, Siebrand Mazeland (WMF) wrote:
LQT has more than 200 open issues in bugzilla. 100+ are marked bug.
There are bug management slots available at
The topic of What is going on with Liquid Threads? has popped up
again[0]. I've said that I think it should be considered to be in
maintenance mode. My reasoning:
* It isn't under active development, but
* It gets quite a workout on the MW.o Support Desk (and other places on
WMF sites)
I'm
I'm trying to fix some of it's problems, but I need reviewers (who can
and are willing to +2):
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/status:open+project:mediawiki/extensions/LiquidThreads,n,z
I'll definitely try to keep up with any breaking core changes (like
On 02/23/2013 03:07 PM, Krenair wrote:
I'm trying to fix some of it's problems, but I need reviewers (who can
and are willing to +2):
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/status:open+project:mediawiki/extensions/LiquidThreads,n,z
I'll definitely try to keep up with any breaking core changes
Mark, your assumptions about LQT are blatantly wrong or in other words
it's just wishful thinking.
Tests are done as usual by translatewiki.net on the last code, then some
volunteers take care of the worst problems: usually it's TWN staff, but
few days ago Krenair has submitted fixes for a
14 matches
Mail list logo
