https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60997

--- Comment #3 from physikerwelt <phy...@ckurs.de> ---
The patch Sam Reed points to (https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/104991/) seems
to produce a high load. Aaron analyzed that via
https://graphite.wikimedia.org/render/?width=849&height=455&_salt=1391893417.452&target=MediaWiki.MathHooks.mathTagHook.tavg&from=-7days
This load is caused by design. See
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49169
If the high load is problematic, we need to disable the feature (like
$wgMathCheckFiles=false before) again via ($wgMathDisableTexFilter = true) or
cache the results of the check. However, this would cause a database lookup. An
alternative would be to check via PHP. For a checking via PHP code we would
need a very good code review of https://github.com/physikerwelt/texvcCheckPhp.
I guess that would require a few days of fulltime work (even for an
experienced) PHP programmer.
In general I have the feeling that my goal to improve the math rendering in
Wikipedia has more negative effects than positive effects for the users. I
don't think the problem is that I did a bad job, but I have the impression that
I did not manage to find a suitable code reviewer for the Math2.0 change. And
breaking down the change to several small commits (that are merged by random
choice) creates more problems than it solves. I think the only way to do a good
job and create a smooth transition from Math 1.1 to Math 2.0 is to find an
experienced MediaWiki-PHP developer and go through the changes in one or two
days in a personal meeting. I’m still in Berlin next week and I’ll move to
Tokyo until April. So in general there should be good chances to meet someone
in person.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l

Reply via email to