Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

This is based on a flawed reading of the GPL. The GPL covers the distribution of program code. The license specifically states that “The act of running the Program is not restricted”. (Furthermore: “Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they a

Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user CSS and JS

On Mar 6, 2013, at 2:43 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote: > On 03/05/2013 09:27 AM, James Forrester wrote: >> You can of course always counter-over-ride your global JS/CSS locally - the >> composite rule would presumably be changed to: >> >> 1. file, >> 2. site >> 3. skin, >> *. global-user >> 4. loca

Re: [Wikitech-l] Problem with CentralAuth in MobileFrontend

Just for the record, sorry for not posting it right away: Chris Steipp found the issue in my case to be the enabled "Block third-party cookies and site data" chrome setting. Even though this is not default at the moment, apparently Firefox is thinking of making this a default. Enabling it breaks t

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 05/03/13 23:45, Matthew Flaschen wrote: On 03/05/2013 02:33 PM, Platonides wrote: On 05/03/13 21:53, Matthew Flaschen wrote: On 03/05/2013 12:29 PM, Luke Welling WMF wrote: We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2 https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree

Re: [Wikitech-l] Problem with CentralAuth in MobileFrontend

From what I *understand* you don't have an account on the local wiki until you visit there. Could perhaps whatever api methods used by the app not be triggering this auto-account-creation process properly like a normal web interface edit would? -bawolff On 2013-03-05 11:17 PM, "Jon Robson" wrote:

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Antoine Musso wrote: >Le 05/03/13 14:28, MZMcBride a écrit : >> A number of former and current contributors (notably Lee Daniel Crocker) >> have released their creative works and inventions into the public >>domain: . > >Does that include is wo

Re: [Wikitech-l] Problem with CentralAuth in MobileFrontend

So an update. I'm pretty sure I've worked this out. CentralAuth will only work if the user has previously visited the wiki project the login attempt is made for. Many browsers these days refuse cookies for sites the user has not visited. I'm still investigating but I'm pretty sure an image to a URL

Re: [Wikitech-l] Linking from Wikipedia articles to local library resources

On 2013-03-05 9:20 PM, "Sumana Harihareswara" wrote: > > See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/glam/2013-March/000361.html & > http://everybodyslibraries.com/2013/03/04/from-wikipedia-to-our-libraries/ > : "how do we get people from Wikipedia articles to the related offerings > of our local lib

Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user CSS and JS

On 03/05/2013 09:27 AM, James Forrester wrote: > You can of course always counter-over-ride your global JS/CSS locally - the > composite rule would presumably be changed to: > > 1. file, > 2. site > 3. skin, > *. global-user > 4. local-user However, it's trickier to override JS then override CSS.

Re: [Wikitech-l] QUnit testing in Jenkins

On 03/04/2013 07:12 PM, Krinkle wrote: > Things this will catch are basically everything else. Any runtime error > that we can't detect in static analysis but will fail no matter what > browser you're in, such as: > > * misspelled identifiers or syntax errors > * issues with ResourceLoader (mw.loa

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 2013-03-05 9:17 PM, "Antoine Musso" wrote: > > Le 05/03/13 14:28, MZMcBride a écrit : > > A number of former and current contributors (notably Lee Daniel Crocker) > > have released their creative works and inventions into the public domain: > >

[Wikitech-l] Linking from Wikipedia articles to local library resources

See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/glam/2013-March/000361.html & http://everybodyslibraries.com/2013/03/04/from-wikipedia-to-our-libraries/ : "how do we get people from Wikipedia articles to the related offerings of our local libraries?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Library_resource

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Le 05/03/13 14:28, MZMcBride a écrit : > A number of former and current contributors (notably Lee Daniel Crocker) > have released their creative works and inventions into the public domain: > . Does that include is work on the OCaml tool that

Re: [Wikitech-l] Query profiling for features developers

On 03/05/2013 04:27 PM, Quim Gil wrote: > On 03/05/2013 01:44 PM, Steven Walling wrote: >> Just wanted to share this piece of new documentation with everyone: >> https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Query_profiling_for_features_developers >> > > Thank you for improving our documentation. > > Is th

Re: [Wikitech-l] Query profiling for features developers

On 03/05/2013 01:44 PM, Steven Walling wrote: Just wanted to share this piece of new documentation with everyone: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Query_profiling_for_features_developers Thank you for improving our documentation. Is there any reason not to have this content at mediawiki.org

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 03/05/2013 02:33 PM, Platonides wrote: > On 05/03/13 21:53, Matthew Flaschen wrote: >> On 03/05/2013 12:29 PM, Luke Welling WMF wrote: >>> We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2 >>> https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources >> >> I am referr

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote: > Also, popular libraries > (such as Google's hosted versions of jQuery and others) always include > license headers in the minified versions. That's not what I see. If I look at jQuery as hosted by Google [1], it starts with the following commen

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 2013-03-05 6:29 PM, "MZMcBride" wrote: > > Ryan Kaldari wrote: > >What do people think about using CC-Zero as a license? Now that's free > >software! > > The Open Source Initiative doesn't seem to really like the idea: > . > > A number of former and current co

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 05/03/13 21:53, Matthew Flaschen wrote: > On 03/05/2013 12:29 PM, Luke Welling WMF wrote: >> We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2 >> https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources > > I am referring to Isarra's comment: > > "The licensing inf

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 06.03.2013, 2:01 Ryan wrote: > I license all of my MediaWiki extensions under an MIT license since I > want people to be able to reuse the JS code on-wiki, but some people > have claimed that even MIT isn't compatible with CC-BY-SA [1]. I've been > thinking about switching to CC-Zero instead.

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

> What do people think about using CC-Zero as a license? > Now that's free software! Relevant link for those interested in more background: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27081 -- | Greg GrossmeierGPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @gregA18D 1138

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 05/03/13 14:07, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 05/03/13 13:18, Max Semenik wrote: >> If you mean that we have to insert that huge chunk of comments from >> [1] into every page, the answer is no because we'll have to >> include several licenses here, making it ridiculously long. > Please see the

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Ryan Kaldari wrote: >What do people think about using CC-Zero as a license? Now that's free >software! The Open Source Initiative doesn't seem to really like the idea: . A number of former and current contributors (notably Lee Daniel Crocker) have released their

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 5 March 2013 22:08, Tyler Romeo wrote: > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: >> I license all of my MediaWiki extensions under an MIT license since I want >> people to be able to reuse the JS code on-wiki, but some people have >> claimed that even MIT isn't compatible with CC-

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > I license all of my MediaWiki extensions under an MIT license since I want > people to be able to reuse the JS code on-wiki, but some people have > claimed that even MIT isn't compatible with CC-BY-SA [1]. I've been > thinking about switching

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 3/5/13 1:03 PM, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote: I would just like to note that while it may be "silly" or "useless" to insert licenses into minified JavaScript, it is nonetheless *legally required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it. My 2 points - during my own research about free

[Wikitech-l] Query profiling for features developers

Hey all, Just wanted to share this piece of new documentation with everyone: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Query_profiling_for_features_developers This came out of a discussion about queries we need to run for the next iteration of Extension:GettingStarted by Ori, Matt Flaschen, and S Page.

[Wikitech-l] Using test doubles to test code with external dependencies

A short while ago I wrote a set of three PHP unit tests for Math that use test doubles to stub out external dependencies (in this case, the database-backed cache and the texvc executable). My intent was to demonstrate the technique to another developer, so I commented the code extensively. It oc

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

I would just like to note that while it may be "silly" or "useless" to insert licenses into minified JavaScript, it is nonetheless *legally required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it. My 2 points - during my own research about free licenses, I've decided that for JS, a good l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 03/05/2013 12:27 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Tyler Romeo" > >> But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW. > > Minification is a WMF cluster issue, not a MW software issue, is it not? No, ResourceLoader and the minification is part

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 03/05/2013 12:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > And in the unlikely event that's not good enough, the Foundation may well > be able to get a codicil license on the relevant libraries, acknowledging > that it needn't include the license text in on-the-wire minified copies. If it does turn out we lega

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 03/05/2013 12:29 PM, Luke Welling WMF wrote: > We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2 > https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources I am referring to Isarra's comment: "The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified j

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 2013-03-05 4:28 PM, "Jay Ashworth" wrote: > > - Original Message - > > From: "Tyler Romeo" > > > But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW. > > Minification is a WMF cluster issue, not a MW software issue, is it not? > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2 https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources This JS which was mentioned in the forwarded email that started this discussion is available via a wiki page so is probably under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 as it is submitte

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

- Original Message - > From: "Tyler Romeo" > But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW. Minification is a WMF cluster issue, not a MW software issue, is it not? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Des

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

> > > But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW. > That would depend on the type of license the wmf got. But hopefully it wouldn't come to that, as quite frankly that would be insane. -bawolff ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitec

Re: [Wikitech-l] Reminder about the best way to link to bugs in commits

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Quim Gil wrote: > fwiw this is not a discussion about Gerrit features but about git commit > and code contribution good practices in general. There is plenty of > literature out there. > > > I also prefer it in the header. The bug report is the best description :)

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Certainly. But I see no reason to think it's legally required. And > while I, too, only play one on the Internet, I've been doing it since 1983. > If you read the licenses, it's pretty obvious. Also, popular libraries (such as Google's host

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

- Original Message - > From: "Tyler Romeo" > > Yes, it will cause an issue. If that extra data is going in every > > reply, > > multiply its size by our replies per day count, won't you? I don't > > know > > what that number is, but I'm quite certain it's substantial. > > > > *Every singl

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 5 March 2013 11:55, Matthew Flaschen wrote: > On 03/05/2013 09:47 AM, Isarra Yos wrote: > > The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified > > js winds up a part. For every file or other object that makes up the > > page to all contain the licensing information would be

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > I am neither an engineer, nor a WMF staffer, but I want to throw a flag > here anyway. > > Yes, it will cause an issue. If that extra data is going in every reply, > multiply its size by our replies per day count, won't you? I don't know > w

Re: [Wikitech-l] Github/Gerrit mirroring

There's some upstream developers working on a github plugin. I was going to mention it once there was something worth showing (which there isn't yet). -Chad On Mar 5, 2013 9:39 AM, "Jon Robson" wrote: > I was wondering what the latest on this was (I can't seem to find any > recent updates in my

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 03/05/2013 09:47 AM, Isarra Yos wrote: > The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified > js winds up a part. For every file or other object that makes up the > page to all contain the licensing information would be pretty unusual. > > It's like taking a file out of a pa

Re: [Wikitech-l] Github/Gerrit mirroring

On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Jon Robson wrote: > I was wondering what the latest on this was (I can't seem to find any > recent updates in my mailing list). The MobileFrontend project was > reassured to see a github user commenting on our commits in github. > It's made me more excited about a univ

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

- Original Message - > From: "Mark Holmquist" > The minification process, however, does *not* cause a problem. We can > simply add the comments to the file(s) after the minification. It does > mean we'll need to include, potentially, multiple license headers in > one HTTP response, but th

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 3/5/13 5:53 AM, Helder . wrote: On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: On 05/03/13 11:38, Wikipedia information team wrote: All of the MediaWiki[1] code base that Wikipedia is licensed under the GPL[2], including the JavaScript. Also included in that is the freely-license

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Caroline E Willis wrote: > Is there a Counsel we can refer this to? > Yes. :) This was already on my radar, and I am following this discussion (which has been useful; specifically, I did not know about the bug already filed on the issue). For those of you who don

Re: [Wikitech-l] QUnit testing in Jenkins

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Ori Livneh wrote: >> Today I sprinted to pick up QUnit testing in Jenkins and get it >> stabilised and deployed. > This is fantastic. Thanks, Timo. Indeed - this is a great milestone. Thanks for all your work getting this out the door, Timo! :-) Erik -- Erik Mö

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:22 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote: > I would just like to note that while it may be "silly" or "useless" to > insert licenses into minified JavaScript, it is nonetheless *legally > required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it. And it is not > a question of whether we w

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Is there a Counsel we can refer this to? On Mar 5, 2013 11:47 AM, "Isarra Yos" wrote: > The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified js > winds up a part. For every file or other object that makes up the page to > all contain the licensing information would be pretty unu

Re: [Wikitech-l] PHP Analyzer (now open-source!)

Le 04/03/13 11:03, Tyler Romeo a écrit : >> > Do you mind sharing the package/source code link? > > https://github.com/scrutinizer-ci/php-analyzer Go ahead and play with it on a labs instance. If you could manage to get an output generated for mediawiki/core that will give us an idea about the u

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified js winds up a part. For every file or other object that makes up the page to all contain the licensing information would be pretty unusual. It's like taking a file out of a page and then complaining that it has no licensing

[Wikitech-l] Github/Gerrit mirroring

I was wondering what the latest on this was (I can't seem to find any recent updates in my mailing list). The MobileFrontend project was reassured to see a github user commenting on our commits in github. It's made me more excited about a universe where pull requests made in github show up in gerri

Re: [Wikitech-l] Reminder about the best way to link to bugs in commits

All these issues with the git-side driver is the reason I think we should have a master-branch-monitoring bot that will update RELEASE-NOTES based on commit messages. Easy to track changes, easy to fix problems. Might be a bit more work than a driver though. On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Barto

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > > I think that determination needs to be made by Counsel, not on a guess. I've quite some knowledge of copyright myself, and I know enough that the matter is subtle enough that this declaration is, at best, an oversimplification that can

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Yes. There seems little value in unqualified people debating if it is legally required. The mainstream FOSS licences all predate minification and seem to have been written with compiled languages in mind, not interpreted languages. Most have language that requires the licence in the source versi

Re: [Wikitech-l] Reminder about the best way to link to bugs in commits

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 17:03:58 +0100, Tim Landscheidt wrote: Bartosz Dziewoński wrote: I wrote a very simple one some time ago, in Ruby. https://github.com/MatmaRex/mediawikireleasenotes-driver It doesn't really work. There are enough changes that are not simple additions that it solves

Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user CSS and JS

Not rubbish - that would be quite useful. The only problem is it would be a somewhat limited use case. Many users never go near their css/js, so it would just be another checkbox for them to ignore, and those who do use global css/js would just as likely have wider scope issues than that - only

Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user CSS and JS

You can of course always counter-over-ride your global JS/CSS locally - the composite rule would presumably be changed to: 1. file, 2. site 3. skin, *. global-user 4. local-user … - so you could fix local incompatibilities. J. On 5 March 2013 09:14, Isarra Yos wrote: > Not rubbish - that wo

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 03/05/2013 12:22 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote: it is nonetheless *legally required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it I think that determination needs to be made by Counsel, not on a guess. I've quite some knowledge of copyright myself, and I know enough that the matter is subtl

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

I would just like to note that while it may be "silly" or "useless" to insert licenses into minified JavaScript, it is nonetheless *legally required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it. And it is not a question of whether we want to support some labeling program that reads JavaScrip

Re: [Wikitech-l] QUnit testing in Jenkins

On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Dan Andreescu wrote: >> From console[1]: >> >> 02:50:21 Testing >> > http://localhost:9412/mediawiki-core-28a705a9f648da310ff2a4fca9d013bf147f3d1f/index.php?title=Special:JavaScriptTest/qunit

Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user CSS and JS

Not rubbish - that would be quite useful. The only problem is it would be a somewhat limited use case. Many users never go near their css/js, so it would just be another checkbox for them to ignore, and those who do use global css/js would just as likely have wider scope issues than that - only

Re: [Wikitech-l] Extensions meta repo problem with MaintenanceShell

On Mar 3, 2013, at 7:04 AM, Chad wrote: > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Jeremy Baron wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: >>> Is anybody else seeing this when running 'git submodule update' in a >>> checkout of the extensions repo? >>> >>> fatal: reference is not a

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Luke Welling WMF wrote: > I don't see the purpose of adding a licence string back on to JavaScript > post-minification. Any recipient wanting to create a derivative work or > redistribute those files is going to go back to the much more readable > source files. > >

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

Le 05/03/13 03:56, Alexander Berntsen a écrit : >> Is it not possible to insert the licence as part of your build >> process? What I do with compiled or minified Javascript is to >> build everything, and then insert the licence to all files using >> BASH. PLEASE NO. Let's not start a drama. The

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

I don't see the purpose of adding a licence string back on to JavaScript post-minification. Any recipient wanting to create a derivative work or redistribute those files is going to go back to the much more readable source files. It would be good form to add licence information to all the JS file

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 12:56:23PM +0100, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > GNU LibreJS blocks several Javascript sources around Wikipedia. I was > sent to this list by Kirk Billund. My issue as well as Kirk's replies > follows. I hope you are okay to read it in this form. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikitech-l] QUnit testing in Jenkins

> From console[1]: > > 02:50:21 Testing > http://localhost:9412/mediawiki-core-28a705a9f648da310ff2a4fca9d013bf147f3d1f/index.php?title=Special:JavaScriptTest/qunitExceptionthrown > by te

[Wikitech-l] Next bugday: Mar 07, 15:00-21:00UTC on General MediaWiki bugs

Hi everybody, Please join us on the next Wikimedia Bugday: Thursday, March 07th, 15:00-21:00 UTC [1] in #wikimedia-dev on Freenode IRC [2] We are going to take a look at a subset [3] of MediaWiki bug reports filed under "General/Unknown", trying to reproduce some plus provide feedback

Re: [Wikitech-l] Replicating enwiki and dewiki for research purposes

Hi, You might also try the following mailing list: * XML Data Dumps mailing list * Here is some info on importing XML dumps ( not sure what tools work well but probably the mailing list can help with that) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wik

Re: [Wikitech-l] Replicating enwiki and dewiki for research purposes

On 03/05/2013 02:54 AM, Andreas Nüßlein wrote: Hi list, so I need to set up a local instance of the dewiki- and enwiki-DB with all revisions.. :-D Just in case: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mirroring_Wikimedia_project_XML_dumps Also, you might want to ask / discuss at https://lists.wikimed

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > On 05/03/13 11:38, Wikipedia information team wrote: > >>> All of the MediaWiki[1] code base that Wikipedia is licensed > >>> under the GPL[2], including the JavaScript. Also included in > >>> that is the freely-licensed (MIT) jQuery[3]

Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user CSS and JS

I may be saying rubbish, but... I think we should have a checkbox in Preferences where we can switch off global JS and CSS for the wiki where this checkbox is set/unset. Let's imagine I have a script which fits well for every project but Wikidata. Then I go to the preferences and just disable the

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 05/03/13 14:38, David Gerard wrote: > Yeah, calling people antisocial when you ask them for something is > definitely the approach to take. Let us know how it works out for > GNU LibreJS. I did not call anyone antisocial. Furthermore I am not aff

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

On 5 March 2013 11:56, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > 03/05/2013 11:16 - Alexander Berntsen wrote: > GNU LibreJs[0] reports that several of the Javascript sources > embedded by different parts of Wikipedia are proprietary[1]. > Is this a conscious anti-social choice[2], or have you merel

Re: [Wikitech-l] jenkins-bot has submitted this change and it was merged.

Done. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45738 Helder On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Andre Klapper wrote: > On Sat, 2013-03-02 at 16:47 -0300, Helder . wrote: > > Can we get the "owner" instead of the "last reviewer" in the text > > below, when a change is merged? > > Please file a

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 05/03/13 13:18, Max Semenik wrote: > If you mean that we have to insert that huge chunk of comments from > [1] into every page, the answer is no because we'll have to > include several licenses here, making it ridiculously long. Please see the Ja

Re: [Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

If you mean that we have to insert that huge chunk of comments from [1] into every page, the answer is no because we'll have to include several licenses here, making it ridiculously long. All JS run on Wikimedia sites is free, and if some software believes otherwise, that software needs to be fixed

[Wikitech-l] Seemingly proprietary Javascript

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 GNU LibreJS blocks several Javascript sources around Wikipedia. I was sent to this list by Kirk Billund. My issue as well as Kirk's replies follows. I hope you are okay to read it in this form. 03/05/2013 11:16 - Alexander Berntsen wrote: GNU L

Re: [Wikitech-l] QUnit testing in Jenkins

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Krinkle wrote: > However, unlike php-checkstyle, our QUnit tests > are actually passing > From console[1]: 02:50:21 Testing http://localhost:9412/mediawiki-core-28a705a9f648da310ff2a4fca9d013bf147f3d1f/index.php?title=Special:JavaScriptTest/qunit.

Re: [Wikitech-l] QUnit testing in Jenkins

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Krinkle wrote: > As of today, we automatically run our QUnit test suite[4] in MediaWiki > core from Jenkins. > Great news! > I won't go in detail about what PhantomJS is, but in short: > > It is a "headless" WebKit browser. Meaning, it doesn't render pixels > to

[Wikitech-l] Replicating enwiki and dewiki for research purposes

Hi list, so I need to set up a local instance of the dewiki- and enwiki-DB with all revisions.. :-D I know it's rather a mammoth project so I was wondering if somebody could give me some pointers? First of all, I would need to know what kind of hardware I should get. Is it possible/smart to have

Re: [Wikitech-l] jenkins-bot has submitted this change and it was merged.

On Sat, 2013-03-02 at 16:47 -0300, Helder . wrote: > Can we get the "owner" instead of the "last reviewer" in the text > below, when a change is merged? Please file a request under the "Wikimedia" product in https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org so this does not get lost. andre -- Andre Klapper | Wikim