https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25676
--- Comment #16 from Neil Kandalgaonkar <[email protected]> 2011-03-28 04:12:40 UTC --- I think(In reply to comment #15) > This bug is about the deployment of a specific extension to Wikimedia wikis. > The last few comments don't really relate to extension deployment, they relate > to the underlying issue, which is covered in bug 17255 (now re-opened). I'm > going to copy over the last few comments from this bug to bug 17255. This bug > should probably be re-resolved, but I'll leave that for someone else. I think MZ is right. Firefogg's protocol (as written) not actually give us upload resumability, since the server can't say what its state is. So if the real goal was resumability, bug 17255 is not fixed yet. In practice, I think enabling Firefogg is at least useful (if not robust to the kinds of errors Tim has mentioned) and has the advantage that it can be implemented relatively simply on the server side. The worst case scenario would be that an uploaded file would be corrupt, but that would be easily detected in most cases. Is it possible to pursue both goals? We are only talking about an extension, after all. We can enable Firefogg today, and think about implementing a better protocol in core very soon after, and then try to convince Firefogg to support that? As a Firefox extension, we can expect Firefogg to auto-update, so we won't have to support their protocol forever. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- 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 [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
