https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47415
--- Comment #19 from Krinkle <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #16) > > So this means that, if needed, we can proceed with this as a temporary hack > > in the Wikibase extension > > Which temporary hack are you referring to? I'm only aware of Ic999454d, which > makes logging autopatroll events optional in core. I think we can and should > go ahead with that. > That is indeed the temporary hack James was referring to (I was sitting next to him when he wrote that). It is temporary because as soon as the _bot and _patrolled fields are moved to the revision table we shall remove logging of autopatrol from core entirely as I'm pretty sure there is no longer an acceptable use-case for them (especially as long as they remain to be logged as the same log_type and log_action as non-auto patrols - ergo it will fix bug 25799). Keeping it around under a feature flag seems pointless and only encourages a bad user experience for patrollers. > For now, the default should be to log autopatrolled events, and this should > only be disabled for wikidata.org to avoid flooding the log. Once we have the > patrolling info in the revision table, the log entries for autopatroll events > are redundant, and might be turned off per default. As James said, this is acceptable – assuming we've considered the feasibility of adding the patrolling info to the revision table soon enough for wikidata not to explode. That it will happen has pretty much been agreed on already, whether it is worth it to do this temporary hack first (thus semi-permanently losing some data about events in the database) or whether it is feasible to get this revision table change through before the problems becomes critical for wikidata. -- 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
