Isn't that one of these bugs?
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T75714
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T96901
Best regards,
Helder
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
> Thanks, I thought I was alone with being confused by this e-mail. As
> Jérémie correctly states we'll likely to get __less__ bugs with a more
> maintained library.
Less than zero? No one has managed to find a single bug
Thanks, I thought I was alone with being confused by this e-mail. As
Jérémie correctly states we'll likely to get __less__ bugs with a more
maintained library. Obfuscation without source code being made
available is anti-open source but that's not what's being talked about
here.
With regards to
On 09/01/2015 07:53 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
I'd personally prefer that we move in the other direction, removing the
minification. I think it's harmful to the open Web to minify, or worse,
obfuscate our code.
I don't agree with this. However, I do think source maps (which allow
you to serve
2015-09-04 1:37 GMT+02:00 Roan Kattouw :
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I thought I was alone with being confused by this e-mail. As
>> Jérémie correctly states we'll likely to get __less__ bugs with a more
>>
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I thought I was alone with being confused by this e-mail. As
>> Jérémie correctly states we'll likely to get __less__ bugs with a more
2015-09-02 1:53 GMT+02:00 MZMcBride :
> Ori Livneh wrote:
>>On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Jérémie Roquet
>>wrote:
>>> Has the RFC been abandonned because of lack of interest?
>>
>>Speaking for myself: at the time the RFC was written, I was skeptical
> On 3 Sep 2015, at 01:02, Jérémie Roquet wrote:
>
> 2015-09-02 1:53 GMT+02:00 MZMcBride :
>> [..] our code. As expected, we've encountered a number of bugs that
>> disappear when the debug=true URL parameter is specified.
>
> [..]
>
> As for bugs, I
Ori Livneh wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Jérémie Roquet
>wrote:
>> Has the RFC been abandonned because of lack of interest?
>
>Speaking for myself: at the time the RFC was written, I was skeptical that
>the benefits would be worth incurring a dependency on an
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
> So +1 for reviving it.
>
Feel free to, however I myself have neither the time nor inclination to
work on this; the components are:
* The extension itself:
https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-Minifier
*
Hi everyone,
I was running some experiments with UglifyJS lately and so I stumbled
upon this RFC which shows that if I've not discovered anything new, we
can still get ~15% smaller JS files.
2014-03-19 22:16 GMT+01:00 Max Semenik :
> Hi, I'd like to present a new RFC for
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Jérémie Roquet
wrote:
> Has the RFC been abandonned because of lack of interest?
>
Speaking for myself: at the time the RFC was written, I was skeptical that
the benefits would be worth incurring a dependency on an external service
(or the
Hi, I'd like to present a new RFC for your consideration:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Minifier
It is about how we can shave 10-15% off the size if JavaScript
delivered to users.
Your comments are highly welcome!:)
--
Best regards,
Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])
13 matches
Mail list logo