I suspect that much of this has to do with the way Parser.php is eleven
thousand lines of programmatic sewage, and the way the ParserTests
infrastructure requires a lot of the rest of MediaWiki to be initialised in
order to run the tests. As long as the rest of the system 'works' well
enough
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tronadoroldid=305058032
In Chrome, the four images in the gallery all appear at different heights.
Is this known? Can it be fixed?
Steve
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Hoi,
It looks like that in Firefox on Ubuntu as well
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/7/30 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tronadoroldid=305058032
In Chrome, the four images in the gallery all appear at different heights.
Is this known? Can it be fixed?
Confirmed in FF 3.5, WinXP.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
dan nessett wrote:
I decided to investigate how well parserTests exercises the MW code. So, I
threw together a couple of MacGyver tools that use xdebug's code coverage
capability and analyzed the results. The results are very, very preliminary,
but I thought I would get them out so others
On 7/29/09 4:51 PM, George Herbert wrote:
I haven't seen an announcement go out, but something seems to be
borken on secure.wikimedia.org again, at least talking to en.wp.
We had a temporary internal borkage around that time causing an overload
of connections to the master database for English
On 7/30/09 4:39 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tronadoroldid=305058032
In Chrome, the four images in the gallery all appear at different heights.
Looks like a bug in the Vector skin style sheet; it's fine for me in
Monobook.
Vertical alignment of the cells
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:53 AM, dan nessettdness...@yahoo.com wrote:
True. However, knowing the coverage of parserTests and knowing which code
isn't even being visited by it is the first step in understanding where the
holes are in testing. Code coverage is a primitive metric. But, it's a
Right. I have looked at both t/ and tests/ and agree that they could use some
work. But when starting on a trip its best to walk in one direction to start.
Otherwise you end up going around in circles.
--- On Thu, 7/30/09, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Chad
The deployment branch, originally envisioned on the lists by myself, is
intended to provide users of mediawiki with access to the latest stable
revision - the one being used on Wikipedia, but not trunk. Unfortunately the
deployment branch has been subverted and is now full of WMF specific hacks.
On 2009-07-30, Brian wrote:
Can we please have a the WMF deployment branch be a branch of an untainted
branch of the particular revision that is considered stable?
This is, and always has been, the latest release (e.g. MediaWiki
1.15.1). If you want to run beyond-stable you cannot expect
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Robert Leverington rob...@rhl.me.ukwrote:
On 2009-07-30, Brian wrote:
Can we please have a the WMF deployment branch be a branch of an
untainted
branch of the particular revision that is considered stable?
This is, and always has been, the latest release
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
The deployment branch, originally envisioned on the lists by myself, is
intended to provide users of mediawiki with access to the latest stable
revision - the one being used on Wikipedia, but not trunk. Unfortunately
the
On 30/07/2009, at 3:53 PM, dan nessett wrote:
True. However, knowing the coverage of parserTests and knowing which
code isn't even being visited by it is the first step in
understanding where the holes are in testing. Code coverage is a
primitive metric. But, it's a place to start.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Mohamed Magdy mohamed@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
The deployment branch, originally envisioned on the lists by myself, is
intended to provide users of mediawiki with access to the latest stable
On 2009-07-30, Brian wrote:
The versioning interactions between mediawiki and its extensions are so
complicated that it is simply not feasible to run the latest release while
simultaneously using a variety of extensions.
Please can you explain more; last time I tried, branched versions of
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Robert Leverington rob...@rhl.me.ukwrote:
On 2009-07-30, Brian wrote:
The versioning interactions between mediawiki and its extensions are so
complicated that it is simply not feasible to run the latest release
while
simultaneously using a variety of
For what its worth: it has been stated in several places
by several people that wmf-deployment is not suitable
for end users. It was never intended for use outside
the WMF and people depending on it are mistaken.
-Chad
On Jul 30, 2009 12:54 PM, Robert Leverington rob...@rhl.me.uk wrote:
On
I am not finished with the analysis (MacGyver) tool, but I thought I would put
up what I have so far on the MediaWiki site. I have created a web page in my
user space for the Parser Test code coverage analysis -
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Dnessett/Parser_Tests/Code_Coverage
I would
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
For what its worth: it has been stated in several places
by several people that wmf-deployment is not suitable
for end users. It was never intended for use outside
the WMF and people depending on it are mistaken.
-Chad
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
For what its worth: it has been stated in several places
by several people that wmf-deployment is not suitable
for end users. It was never
On 7/30/09 9:19 AM, Brian wrote:
The deployment branch, originally envisioned on the lists by myself, is
intended to provide users of mediawiki with access to the latest stable
revision - the one being used on Wikipedia, but not trunk. Unfortunately the
deployment branch has been subverted and
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 7/30/09 9:19 AM, Brian wrote:
The deployment branch, originally envisioned on the lists by myself, is
intended to provide users of mediawiki with access to the latest stable
revision - the one being used on
On 7/30/09 11:02 AM, Brian wrote:
The process of development is such that these things become generalized
over time, and then a specific hack is no longer needed. Please feel
free to pitch in when you see such things that still need cleanup.
The wmf-deployment shouldn't _need_ any
Hello,
Due to a problem in one of our core routers in our Tampa cluster we need
to perform some network maintenance tomorrow, Friday July 31st around
12:00 UTC. We will be performing a software upgrade and reboot of the
router. This should not take more than a few minutes if everything goes
well.
On 30/07/2009, at 6:40 PM, Brian wrote:
I'm still waiting on the rational rejection of the need for a
deployment
branch of mediawiki for the rest of us.
You're welcome to do the work yourself instead of posting a request
and expecting somebody to do nontrivial work for you, especially
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 30/07/2009, at 6:40 PM, Brian wrote:
I'm still waiting on the rational rejection of the need for a
deployment
branch of mediawiki for the rest of us.
You're welcome to do the work yourself instead of posting
On 2009-07-30, Brian wrote:
You seem confused, perhaps you should re-read the thread. I never asked
anyone to do anything except make a branch.
That *is* non-trivial. Someone will have to maintain that branch.
Someone will have to make a judgement about when to update that branch.
Generally
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Robert Leverington rob...@rhl.me.ukwrote:
On 2009-07-30, Brian wrote:
You seem confused, perhaps you should re-read the thread. I never asked
anyone to do anything except make a branch.
That *is* non-trivial. Someone will have to maintain that branch.
29 matches
Mail list logo
