The PHP development team announces the immediate availability of PHP
5.4.24. About 14 bugs were fixed. All PHP 5.4 users are encouraged to
upgrade to this version.
The PHP development team announces the immediate availability of PHP
5.5.8. This release fixes about 20 bugs against PHP 5.5.7
This morning I tried to run some unit tests, and to my surprise it failed
with an error that PHPUnit 3.7.0 is now required. This was apparently done
in Gerrit change 105920[1] in response to bug 59759.[2]
Grepping through 1.23wmf10 finds the PHPUnit function complained about in
that bug in only a
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
The problem here is that Ubuntu's upcoming 14.04 Trusty Tahr, as well as
Debian unstable (sid), currently contain PHPUnit 3.6.10.[3][4] It seems to
me that requiring our developers to manually install a
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
What version is available via PEAR? Installing via that is no more
manual than apt.
Also don't forget composer as well.
*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
Major in Computer Science
On Jan 14, 2014 11:58 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
This morning I tried to run some unit tests, and to my surprise it failed
with an error that PHPUnit 3.7.0 is now required. This was apparently done
in Gerrit change 105920[1] in response to bug 59759.[2]
Grepping
Hey,
What version is available via PEAR? Installing via that is no more
manual than apt.
Sebastian recommends that you use the phar, which is a lot easier then
PEAR. Instructions on how to use it can be found at:
https://github.com/sebastianbergmann/phpunit#installation
This morning I tried
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.comwrote:
Hey,
What version is available via PEAR? Installing via that is no more
manual than apt.
Sebastian recommends that you use the phar, which is a lot easier then
PEAR. Instructions on how to use it can be found
Hey,
can you use a phar file for loading a library and not just executing a
script?
Yeah, you can include the phar (with a PHP include statement).
Can we use the phar in core?
Sure. One reason I've seen brought forward to bundle such a phar with a
project is that then everyone runs the same
Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...]
The problem here is that Ubuntu's upcoming 14.04 Trusty Tahr, as well as
Debian unstable (sid), currently contain PHPUnit 3.6.10.[3][4] It seems to
me that requiring our developers to manually install a different version of
phpunit is
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.comwrote:
Hey,
can you use a phar file for loading a library and not just executing a
script?
Yeah, you can include the phar (with a PHP include statement).
Can we use the phar in core?
Sure. One reason I've seen
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
What version is available via PEAR? Installing via that is no more
manual than apt.
Err, yes it is. With apt it gets upgraded whenever I upgrade anything else,
while pear is in its own little world with its own
On the RFC Process talk page, I'm presenting some questions about our RFC
process and suggesting *my* answers:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Process#Process_questionsYou
may find this super boring and I will not blame you if you skip the
whole discussion, but I may ask
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
What version is available via PEAR? Installing via that is no more
manual than apt.
Err, yes it is. With apt it gets upgraded
Dear Gerard,
Thank you so much for your kind words about the proposed Multimedia Vision for
Wikimedia sites by 2016. (1)
I am glad that our first user stories resonate with you. They intentionally
focus on ways that our community may interact through multimedia -- and we view
these types of
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, at 4:52, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
On the RFC Process talk page, I'm presenting some questions about our RFC
process and suggesting *my* answers:
Where can I find previous RFCs? It's a thing I haven't heard of before.
How are contributors expected to find it?
Gryllida
On 01/14/2014 04:21 PM, Gryllida wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, at 4:52, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
On the RFC Process talk page, I'm presenting some questions about our RFC
process and suggesting *my* answers:
Where can I find previous RFCs?
They are listed at
It looks like this annoucement didn't make it to this list before.
Original Message
Subject: [MediaWiki-l] Wikimania 2014 scholarship now accepting application
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 17:43:31 +
From: Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info
Reply-To: MediaWiki announcements and site
Hi!
Change https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/79025/ that was merged to 1.22
breaks my TikaMW extension - I used that hook to extract contents from
binary files so the user can then search on it.
Maybe you can add some other hook for this purpose?
See also
On 01/13/2014 01:59 PM, Nathan Larson wrote:
I can't exactly post a bug to MediaZilla saying Create Inclupedia and
then have a bunch of different bugs it depends on, because non-WMF projects
are beyond the scope of MediaZilla.
That's not the case. There are components for software the WMF
Hi, today at the Engineering Community Team IRC meeting we had a
discussion about the Facebook Open Academy program:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Facebook_Open_Academy#Projects
See the minutes and full logs at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Engineering_Community_Team/Meetings#2014-01-14
In
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:33 PM, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote:
Hi!
Change https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/79025/ that was merged to 1.22
breaks my TikaMW extension - I used that hook to extract contents from
binary files so the user can then search on it.
Maybe you can add some other hook
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Matthew Flaschen
mflasc...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
That's not the case. There are components for software the WMF does not
use. This ranges from major projects like Semantic MW to one-off
extensions that WMF does not have a use for (e.g. Absentee Landlord) to
Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
On the RFC Process talk page, I'm presenting some questions about our RFC
process and suggesting *my* answers:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Process
You've begun a discussion about changes to the process seemingly without
making any attempt
Yo, MZ, did you miss the very first question, where I asked whether the
current process is good enough? I'm totally cool with the answer yeah it
is (except for numbering, I really want to be able to disambiguate RFCs on
similar topics).
Sounds like you'd like more clarification on problems I'm
On Jan 14, 2014 8:20 PM, Nathan Larson nathanlarson3...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Matthew Flaschen
mflasc...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
That's not the case. There are components for software the WMF does not
use. This ranges from major projects like Semantic MW to
I wrote:
But I think
it would make more sense to have a bare metal provisioning process for
misc servers which allowed smaller numbers of Intel cores per server,
where that fits the application. That would improve energy efficiency
without the need to deploy a new architecture.
Actually,
13.01.2014 14:58, Pavel Astakhov пишет:
Hi! I would like to discuss an idea.
In MediaWiki is not very convenient to docomputingusing the syntax of
the wiki. We have to use several extensions like Variables, Arrays,
ParserFunctions and others. If there are a lot of computing, such as
data
27 matches
Mail list logo
