On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
wrote:
Indentation is a crappy workaround for when your communication system
does not support a sane threading model - it isn't a threading model or
a substitute for one.
Err, what's the threading model in Flow's UI? Or
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 March 2015 at 10:49, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 March 2015 at 09:45, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
On 15-03-17 10:56 AM, Risker wrote:
It just strikes me as weird that the software that we keep being told will
improve communication and collaboration is deliberately designed in such a
way that it is difficult for the human users (as opposed to the software)
to be able to immediately discern
Ricordisamoa wrote:
Il 09/11/2014 18:33, MZMcBride ha scritto:
Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
But there is also a great heap of anecdotal data that shows that having
to provide an email account increases the barrier of entry to users
signing up. So, there's a tradeoff.
Eh, I think the anecdotal
Yes, the plan is for editing posts to go everywhere. We want to go a little
bit extra slow with deploying that feature just to make sure that the
pieces we've put in place actually work properly. So it's rolling out to
Mediawiki.org next week, and then English and Russian WP the week after.
(The
Il 18/03/2015 05:08, Danny Horn ha scritto:
Yes, the plan is for editing posts to go everywhere. We want to go a little
bit extra slow with deploying that feature just to make sure that the
pieces we've put in place actually work properly. So it's rolling out to
Mediawiki.org next week, and then
Il 18/03/2015 04:30, MZMcBride ha scritto:
Ricordisamoa wrote:
Il 09/11/2014 18:33, MZMcBride ha scritto:
Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
But there is also a great heap of anecdotal data that shows that having
to provide an email account increases the barrier of entry to users
signing up. So,
Danny Horn schreef op 2015/03/17 om 21:08:
And I'm glad to hear that this thread has come close to almost inspiring
optimism. That's what I'm here for.
In a sample of one. Still, I guess one finds solace where one can.
KWW
___
Wikitech-l mailing
Nick Wilson (Quiddity) schreef op 2015/03/16 om 19:03:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
How about just converting those threads back to Wikitext, instead? That
script already exists, I've seen it used on Mediawiki. Will it mess up the
pages that have already
Pardon me if I missed an announcement, but will there be any office hours
about Flow in the near future? I have a few general questions about
cross-wiki discussions and the relationship of Flow to VE. (I'm mostly
focused on VE right now.)
Thanks,
Pine
On Mar 16, 2015 11:21 PM, Kevin Wayne
Hoi,
Sorry but Wikitext is of such a nature that I do not use it as much as
possible. LiquidThreads was a huge step forward and I still find it
astonishing that it was left to rot for such a long time.I really welcome
the move towards Flow.
Flow is not an inadequate substitute, it is what will
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com wrote:
There doesn't seem to be any particular user demand to adopt Flow,
so there's no reason to believe it will gain any more traction than LQT ever
did.
There was significant community interest and momentum
Now done. (I'd meant to earlier, along with the Tech/News entry). Thanks
for the reminder, and the general support. Specific suggestions/requests
are much appreciated. Please do tell me which elements of LQT you (all)
regularly use and can't see in the Sandbox or short-term roadmap.
I'll respond
Hi Nick,
I'm glad the Foundation is finally valuing a usable discussion system.
Unfortunately, there are some serious issues with Flow which will
prevent my use of it in production if not addressed in full:
* Administrators *must* be able to to see a deleted Flow board without
undeleting
On 17 March 2015 at 02:55, Gergo Tisza gti...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Daniel Friesen dan...@nadir-seen-fire.com
wrote:
Bitcoin is not untraceable.
An adversary capable enough to eavesdrop on dissidents' communication
making them need Tor should be capable of
Il 09/11/2014 18:33, MZMcBride ha scritto:
Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
But there is also a great heap of anecdotal data that shows that having
to provide an email account increases the barrier of entry to users
signing up. So, there's a tradeoff.
Eh, I think the anecdotal data (such as
Ricordisamoa wrote:
Il 17/03/2015 23:29, Danny Horn ha scritto:
-- The ability to edit other people's posts will be out on Mediawiki by
the end of next week. We’ve made a few interface changes to support
that. Posts that have been edited by someone that isn’t the original
poster now say
Il 10/11/2014 17:23, Chris Steipp ha scritto:
On the general topic, I think either a captcha or verifying an email makes
a small barrier to building a bot, but it's significant enough that it
keeps the amateur bots out. I'd be very interested in seeing an experiment
run to see what the exact
Il 17/03/2015 23:29, Danny Horn ha scritto:
Thanks for all of the questions and suggestions. Flow is still in active
development, and there's a lot of feature work being done right now. Some
of the features that have been mentioned in this thread are actually just
about to be released, and some
Il 16/03/2015 09:37, Andre Klapper ha scritto:
Hi Krys,
On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 17:23 -0800, Krys Nu wrote:
I wish to express my interest in working on the above mentioned project. I
have the required technical skill -PHP- and I am willing tread new grounds.
I would love to discuss more about
Thanks for all of the questions and suggestions. Flow is still in active
development, and there's a lot of feature work being done right now. Some
of the features that have been mentioned in this thread are actually just
about to be released, and some are coming up over the next month or so.
Instead of dropping indents use something like {{od}}
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015, Danny Horn dh...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(sorry for reposting, the first version had attachments and wasn't
appearing in the archive)
As a PS to that long post, here's another long post. I mentioned above that
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you all missed some old good rants. So here is one :) why the
hell is the URL Topic:Sdoatsbslsafx6lw and not something easy to read
and remember?
See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T59154.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at
(sorry for reposting, the first version had attachments and wasn't
appearing in the archive)
As a PS to that long post, here's another long post. I mentioned above that
I'd get into more detail about indents and tangents.
Wikitext talk pages use indentation for two different reasons -- to create
On 17 mrt. 2015, at 19:45, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/03/15 15:32, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
wrote:
Indentation is a crappy workaround for when your communication system
does not support a sane
On 17/03/15 15:32, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
wrote:
Indentation is a crappy workaround for when your communication system
does not support a sane threading model - it isn't a threading model or
a substitute for one.
Err,
I'm working on cleaning up the code[1] for GrantsBot[2] and generally
getting it into better and more robust shape. I've started writing basic
unit tests to assist in the refactoring process. Since it interacts so
heavily with the MediaWiki API, however, this isn't a straightforward
process, and
hello
i am a b.tech student pursuing my carrer at iiit bhubaneswar,india.
i am deeply interested in gsoc 2015 and wanted to do a project under this
organization.
how should i proceed..??
do we need to solve any bugs..??
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Ok, here I copy my message
Petrb (talkcontribsblock)
Hi,
I think you all missed some old good rants. So here is one :) why the
hell is the URL Topic:Sdoatsbslsafx6lw and not something easy to read
and remember?
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Nick Wilson (Quiddity)
nwil...@wikimedia.org wrote:
We’d like to hear which features you use on the current LQT boards,
and that you’re concerned about losing in the Flow conversion.
Working watchlist functionality, see
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
* An arbitrary indentation level *must* be allowed, with optional
facilitations for adding an {{outdent}}-like marker
Why? Manual indentation just leads to you having to decode these levels
sometimes.
Il 17/03/2015 14:05, Max Semenik ha scritto:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
* An arbitrary indentation level *must* be allowed, with optional
facilitations for adding an {{outdent}}-like marker
Why? Manual indentation just leads to you
Il 17/03/2015 14:34, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) ha scritto:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Max Semenik maxsem.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Ricordisamoa
ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
* An arbitrary indentation level *must* be allowed, with optional
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
Software cannot understand which post a message replies to.
It can, and more easily than with raw wikitext, as long as the correct
reply button is used, i.e. if people actually click reply instead of
using the
Il 17/03/2015 14:45, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) ha scritto:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
Software cannot understand which post a message replies to.
It can, and more easily than with raw wikitext, as long as the correct
reply button is used, i.e.
No thanks, I prefer this mailing list thread
Hmm, but there are other people who use LQT all over the day and are very
active in contributing (at least on Project:Support_desk), so they would have
the chance to discuss with us there, if they aren't subscribers of this list
(and don't want to
For my perspective (sorry if this is covered somewhere I've missed), who
made the decision to do this conversion? One of my reasons for interest is
that at en.wn we have LQT and *do not want* Flow. (A fairly good summary
of the sense of the en.wn community is (1) we would rather LQT than Flow
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Max Semenik maxsem.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Ricordisamoa
ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
* An arbitrary indentation level *must* be allowed, with optional
facilitations for adding an {{outdent}}-like marker
Why?
On 17 March 2015 at 09:45, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Ricordisamoa
ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
Software cannot understand which post a message replies to.
It can, and more easily than with raw wikitext, as long as the
On 17 March 2015 at 10:49, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 March 2015 at 09:45, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Ricordisamoa
Google Summer of Code 2015 and Outreachy Round 10 have kicked off. We have
already received a few proposals and a lot of projects have received
tremendous interest. But some of these projects still lack mentors and
we're hoping you might be interested in being one.
1. Cross-wiki watchlists[1]: A
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 March 2015 at 09:45, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Ricordisamoa
ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
Software cannot understand which post a message replies
Erik Moeller schreef op 2015/03/17 om 1:39:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com wrote:
There doesn't seem to be any particular user demand to adopt Flow,
so there's no reason to believe it will gain any more traction than LQT ever
did.
There was
43 matches
Mail list logo
