Awesome! Looking forward to tuning in.
-Sam
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
> Good luck Matt! Glad to hear you'll be the sharing your experience of
> conversions with the wider FOSS community.
>
> I look forward to seeing the streamed version!
> On 15
Thanks a lot for your input, my doubts are clear now :)
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Andre Klapper
wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-01-09 at 12:13 -0800, Brian Wolff wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 9, 2016, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> > > As Danny said, this is a wonderful thing to
@Rob Lanphier I was asking on behalf of myself
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Bill Morrisson
wrote:
> Thanks a lot for your input, my doubts are clear now :)
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Andre Klapper
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat,
I'm allergic to videos as replacement of data, but does your video
substantially differ from what tests give us, e.g.
http://www.webpagetest.org/video/view.php?id=160118_YK_HKT.1.0 ?
It's easy to test multiple speeds (some tests still pending):
Hi folks,
Over the past few weeks (including WikiDev '16) we've had several
conversations the Wikimedia software development governance model.
For a lot of people, the most important aspect of this is MediaWiki.
More generally, though, the scope is about we deploy to Wikimedia
sites that we
>>> Have you looked at using OAuth for authentication?
>>
>> Yes; the modules in use support OAuth but we made a conscious decision to
>> support anonymity. Lack of anonymity can interfere with the operation of the
>> reviewer reputation database.
>
> I'd love to read the background discussion
> Have you looked at using OAuth for authentication?
Yes; the modules in use support OAuth but we made a conscious decision to
support anonymity. Lack of anonymity can interfere with the operation of
the reviewer reputation database.
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016, James Salsman
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:22 PM, James Salsman wrote:
>> Have you looked at using OAuth for authentication?
>
> Yes; the modules in use support OAuth but we made a conscious decision to
> support anonymity. Lack of anonymity can interfere with the operation of the
> reviewer