https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47415
--- Comment #11 from Krinkle <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #8) > [Speaking with my "Product Manager for Admin Tools" hat on.] > > (In reply to comment #5) > > I'm not sure what the point is of disabling auto patrol logging entirely. > > The point is to save Wikidata from falling over because the DB can't scale. > (Note, BTW, that the proposal is only to disable autopatrol logging for > Wikidata, not other wikis; you can see the default setting for MW itself in > the commit.) > > The fault is not with Wikibase (which uses the entirely-reasonable concept of > letting wiki users edit things in the same way as on core MW), but with MW > core's design not being thought-through in terms of scalability. We already > know that the revisions table's growth is a problem; patrolling logs cause a > second table to also be a problem. > How come this is a problem new with Wikidata? We have close to a 1,000 of wikis with many thousands of wiki-admins, stewards, bots, reviewers, rollbackers and patrollers etc. all who make lots of edits that are autopatrolled. (In reply to comment #7) > I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow. When do you ever need to see the log > entries for *auto*patrolled edits? Don't they just duplicate the page > history? Yes, on a healthy wiki every revision would have a patrol entry at some point (either autopatrol or patrol by another user). This is nothing new. I can imagine this being a scalability problem, but I don't see how that only becomes a problem now. And if it is, I imagine we'll need a solution for other all other wikis as well (commons, enwiki, ..). Perhaps operations thinks that could be deferred to later, but if this is as important as some people make it seem, I imagine it is as much as problem elsewhere as for wikidata and we'll need single solution for all very soon. Is that worth boldly sacrificing the integrity of the database (inconsistently log entries missing for actions taken, that are usually there for the same action by other users and on all other wikis). > > If "claim" should not be subject to auto-patrolling or patrolling, then that > > should be disabled instead. > > > Solving the "claim" auto patrol log problem, by disabling the logging for it > > entirely seems an odd way to solve the problem. > > I appreciate that this is disruptive for users of the patrolling logs, most > notably the CVU tools, but this is a change made for site stability, and we > must accept it. Maybe you mistunderstood, but I don't see how this relates to the cited statement. I am suggesting that if "claim" creations should not be reviewed through the patrolling system, what's stopping Wikibase from preventing the patrol entry in the first place? Perform the creation like other unpatrollable actions (such as uploads, they create an unpatrollable recentchanges entry and no autopatrol entry). I think it would be unfortunate if claims are not patrollable but since that seems already accepted, I'm merely suggesting we don't also disable logging for autopatrols outside this area (e.g. edits to regular pages, talk pages, categories, user pages, project pages etc.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
