Re: [SMW-devel] Create semantic property as simple long text

[Yury Katkov]

First of all ensure that the page Property:Teaser exists and contains the
following text:

[[has type::text]]

Then ensure that you have the latest version of SMW: only the latest
version can search on Text properties.
-
Yury Katkov, WikiVote



On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM, s9gf4ult  wrote:

> Hello, I am trying to create semantic property just like that.
>
> [[Teaser::some long text . ]]
>
> But when I am doing the ask query like that
>
> {{#ask: [[Teaser::+]]
> | ?Teaser
> }}
>
> the result is empty, until I reduce the length of [[Teaser::]] content.
> And when I reduce the length of the teaser text I receive a link to the
> new article instead of simple text. I beleive this is because too long
> text can not be a title of an article and SMW tries to interpret it as.
>
> How to say SMW that the Teaser property is just simple text, not an
> article ?
>
>
> --
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
> ___
> Semediawiki-devel mailing list
> Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
>
--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

[SMW-devel] Create semantic property as simple long text

[s9gf4ult]

Hello, I am trying to create semantic property just like that.

[[Teaser::some long text . ]]

But when I am doing the ask query like that

{{#ask: [[Teaser::+]]
| ?Teaser
}}

the result is empty, until I reduce the length of [[Teaser::]] content.
And when I reduce the length of the teaser text I receive a link to the
new article instead of simple text. I beleive this is because too long
text can not be a title of an article and SMW tries to interpret it as.

How to say SMW that the Teaser property is just simple text, not an
article ?

--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

[SMW-devel] Special Properties- exciting question

[Lists]

Hello folks, I have another exciting question

Programatically set special properties/meta properties are always
overwritten with a "hard coded" value or deleted by triggering
SMW_refreshData.php. There is a constant realtionship between semantic
properties and Wiki-text anotations. So only properties with existing
corresponding annotations and semantic values in a Wiki page or template
will be "SMW_refreshData-save".
Only there individual values will be the same after a SMW_refreshData.php,
because they are actually stored in the wiki page content itself.  

Is this always true? Are there any exceptional casees?

thanks very mutch, Steve


--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW and LTS

[James HK]

Hi,

>> Just to clarify: are you saying that the need to support older versions of 
>> MediaWiki, and specifically 1.19, makes certain features in SMW impossible?

I'm not saying it is impossible but as soon as you start using "if"
statements to accommodate releases you introduce dependencies which
will invite bugs to appear because the underlying method that is
executed can act differently depending on the "if" release used.

>> adding them more difficult, because of the need to add in a bunch of "if" 
>> statement

I would say, release dependant "if" statements are always a bad design
choice and should be avoided at all costs (see above, you can't
predict a methods outcome due to an exogenous variable (namely an
introduced release dependency)).

PS: For example [1](it could be worst but haven't found any other
example) which only carries a minor incision in how to get to the page
content but it is still an "if" statement too many and bloating the
code from its core purpose.

[1] 
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/gitweb?p=mediawiki/extensions/SemanticMediaWiki.git;a=blob;f=includes/queryprinters/FeedResultPrinter.php#l259

Cheers

On 2/26/13, Yaron Koren  wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Just to clarify: are you saying that the need to support older versions of
> MediaWiki, and specifically 1.19, makes certain features in SMW impossible?
> Or are you saying that it just makes adding them more difficult, because of
> the need to add in a bunch of "if" statements and the like? That's actually
> a big distinction - I wanted to make sure I understood.
>
> -Yaron
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:04 PM, James HK
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > SMW 1.9   (15/03/2013) -> MW 1.19 (09/02/2012): 1.1 years
>>
>> On a site note, in two or three occasions when I was adding something
>> to SMW 1.9 I had to back down because suddenly the approach preferred
>> didn't work in MW 1.19 (I think it is one hook, two methods when
>> testing against MW 1.19) which means I had to find a workaround just
>> to make sure it works with MW 1.19.
>>
>> This sort of thing drains motivation (at least mine) while doing a
>> change having the need to dance around a few more blocks just to
>> satisfy the need of supporting MW 1.19.
>>
>> > SMW 1.10  (15/08/2013) -> MW 1.19 (09/02/2012): 1.5 years
>>
>> This proposal would take developers hostage to accommodate MW 1.19 and
>> negate any possibility to use new classes introduced in MW 1.21
>> (prominently Content class etc.).
>>
>> > They should also think about if a bug or feature is important enough to
>> be backported.
>>
>> Well, if I find something to fix I'll do it for the current master and
>> anyone who finds the time can make a backport but I'll stopped doing
>> extra interventions some time ago. This also means that when SMW 1.10
>> is in master fixes are applied to that master and any other branch has
>> to find a maintainer if he/she wants to have  those fixes applied.
>>
>> PS: When I started this thread, I thought I ask some tangible
>> questions about how and why .. but somehow I have the feeling this
>> discussion is going to be less tangible in its outcome because it is
>> more about SemanticBundle or SemanticForms than it is about SMW and
>> LTS. Of course if the discussion is shifting in favour of
>> SemanticBundle being the main LTS release holder than this is fine as
>> well but than we should shift the topic as well.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>> --
>> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
>> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
>> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
>> ___
>> Semediawiki-devel mailing list
>> Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com
>

--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW and LTS

[Yaron Koren]

Hi James,

Just to clarify: are you saying that the need to support older versions of
MediaWiki, and specifically 1.19, makes certain features in SMW impossible?
Or are you saying that it just makes adding them more difficult, because of
the need to add in a bunch of "if" statements and the like? That's actually
a big distinction - I wanted to make sure I understood.

-Yaron


On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:04 PM, James HK wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > SMW 1.9   (15/03/2013) -> MW 1.19 (09/02/2012): 1.1 years
>
> On a site note, in two or three occasions when I was adding something
> to SMW 1.9 I had to back down because suddenly the approach preferred
> didn't work in MW 1.19 (I think it is one hook, two methods when
> testing against MW 1.19) which means I had to find a workaround just
> to make sure it works with MW 1.19.
>
> This sort of thing drains motivation (at least mine) while doing a
> change having the need to dance around a few more blocks just to
> satisfy the need of supporting MW 1.19.
>
> > SMW 1.10  (15/08/2013) -> MW 1.19 (09/02/2012): 1.5 years
>
> This proposal would take developers hostage to accommodate MW 1.19 and
> negate any possibility to use new classes introduced in MW 1.21
> (prominently Content class etc.).
>
> > They should also think about if a bug or feature is important enough to
> be backported.
>
> Well, if I find something to fix I'll do it for the current master and
> anyone who finds the time can make a backport but I'll stopped doing
> extra interventions some time ago. This also means that when SMW 1.10
> is in master fixes are applied to that master and any other branch has
> to find a maintainer if he/she wants to have  those fixes applied.
>
> PS: When I started this thread, I thought I ask some tangible
> questions about how and why .. but somehow I have the feeling this
> discussion is going to be less tangible in its outcome because it is
> more about SemanticBundle or SemanticForms than it is about SMW and
> LTS. Of course if the discussion is shifting in favour of
> SemanticBundle being the main LTS release holder than this is fine as
> well but than we should shift the topic as well.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> --
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
> ___
> Semediawiki-devel mailing list
> Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
>



-- 
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com
--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW and LTS

[James HK]

Hi,

> SMW 1.9   (15/03/2013) -> MW 1.19 (09/02/2012): 1.1 years

On a site note, in two or three occasions when I was adding something
to SMW 1.9 I had to back down because suddenly the approach preferred
didn't work in MW 1.19 (I think it is one hook, two methods when
testing against MW 1.19) which means I had to find a workaround just
to make sure it works with MW 1.19.

This sort of thing drains motivation (at least mine) while doing a
change having the need to dance around a few more blocks just to
satisfy the need of supporting MW 1.19.

> SMW 1.10  (15/08/2013) -> MW 1.19 (09/02/2012): 1.5 years

This proposal would take developers hostage to accommodate MW 1.19 and
negate any possibility to use new classes introduced in MW 1.21
(prominently Content class etc.).

> They should also think about if a bug or feature is important enough to be 
> backported.

Well, if I find something to fix I'll do it for the current master and
anyone who finds the time can make a backport but I'll stopped doing
extra interventions some time ago. This also means that when SMW 1.10
is in master fixes are applied to that master and any other branch has
to find a maintainer if he/she wants to have  those fixes applied.

PS: When I started this thread, I thought I ask some tangible
questions about how and why .. but somehow I have the feeling this
discussion is going to be less tangible in its outcome because it is
more about SemanticBundle or SemanticForms than it is about SMW and
LTS. Of course if the discussion is shifting in favour of
SemanticBundle being the main LTS release holder than this is fine as
well but than we should shift the topic as well.

Cheers

--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW and LTS

[Stephan Gambke]

On 02/25/2013 10:27 PM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
>> (because they had an extension accessing the DB directly).
> 
> Ignoring abstractions like this and making oneself dependent on private
> internals of a system leads to fragility and rigidity. This is not good.
> I strongly oppose doing effort to not break compatibility with such code
> as a general rule since this would encourage bad practices.

This was only chosen as an example why someone might want to use a
particular SMW version a while longer, but you are right, of course,
this is indeed bad practice and I also would not spend effort to keep
compatibility. However, if you know about it, you should at least state
the incompatibility, because you will not only punish the developers
(who might not even care any more), but the users (who happen to just
now need this particular extension very much). Seems far-fetched? Try
the Semantic TreeView extension.

I think a better way to approach this would be to stick to the review
process, even if it was more effort. (Although it probably would not
have helped the TreeView.)

Cheers,
Stephan

--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW and LTS

[Jeroen De Dauw]

Hey,

> (because they had an extension accessing the DB directly).

Ignoring abstractions like this and making oneself dependent on private
internals of a system leads to fragility and rigidity. This is not good. I
strongly oppose doing effort to not break compatibility with such code as a
general rule since this would encourage bad practices.

Cheers

--
Jeroen De Dauw
http://www.bn2vs.com
Don't panic. Don't be evil.
--
--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] Semantic Bundle and MW tarball

[Mark A. Hershberger]

On 02/25/2013 03:11 PM, jmccl...@hypergrove.com wrote:
>
> Hi - where can I find more information about how the MW installer and
> the extensions it installs? And I'm also wondering what the criteria
> are for an extension to be part of the "SMW bundle"?
>
I don't know what the criteria is for including an extension in the SMW
bundle.

But, you can see the extensions that MediaWiki ships with by downloading
MediaWiki and looking in the extensions directory.  As of 1.20.2, this
is: Gadgets, Vector, WikiEditor, ParserFunctions, Renameuser,
ConfirmEdit and Nuke.

Extensions to be installed with MediaWiki came from suggestions made at
.  I plan on adding
Cite, InputBox, and SyntaxHighlight_GeSHI next time.

As far where you can find information about the installer, use the
source! ;)  Or try to use it.  There isn't a lot of documentation.

Mark.

-- 
http://hexmode.com/

There is no path to peace. Peace is the path.
   -- Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"


--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] Semantic Bundle and MW tarball

[Yaron Koren]

Hi,

Mark - that sounds like a good idea. We're actually going to have another
release of Semantic Bundle in the near future, that should fix some
remaining issues; so I think it would be a good candidate for trying to
create this kind of package.

John - the criteria for inclusion in the Semantic Bundle are set by its
maintainers: me, Jeroen and Sergey. I should note that SB is not an
official SMW product.

-Yaron

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:11 PM,  wrote:

> **
>
> Hi - where can I find more information about how the MW installer and the
> extensions it installs? And I'm also wondering what the criteria are for an
> extension to be part of the "SMW bundle"?
>
> thanks - john
>
> On 25.02.2013 12:01, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
>
> On Mon 25 Feb 2013 02:12:41 PM EST, Yaron Koren wrote:
>
> It sounds like a good idea to me. What version of MediaWiki would you want
> to start with - 1.20 (the current version), I assume?
>
> At the latest, we could do 1.21.  Earliest I would go is 1.19.  But
> 1.20 is a good place to start.
>
> Since the MW installer can also install extensions (as it does for
> those it is shipped with) one thing we would need to do is make sure
> any shipping extensions can be installed with the installer.  If the
> installer needs to be fixed, to do this then we'll have to limit this
> to 1.21 onwards (but it may be worthwhile to fix any bugs in 1.20 or
> 1.19).
>
> And where do you think it makes sense to host and document these packages?
>
> I think it would make sense to host them with the regular MediaWiki
> tarballs, but assuming that isn't do-able (I would need to ask and I
> think Ariel already wanted to change were the tarballs were hosted),
> why not add them to the SF dowload page?  Maybe we could put them on 
> toolserver.org?
>
> As far as documenting, I think https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Semantic_Bundle 
> and http://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Semantic_Bundle make a lot of
> sense.  Linking to the bundle page and download link from the front
> page of SMW.org also makes sense.
>
> Of course, I'm open to any other ideas you have for documentation and
> hosting.
>
> --http://hexmode.com/
>
>
> There is no path to peace. Peace is the path.
>-- Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"
>
>
> --
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
> ___
> Semediawiki-devel mailing 
> listSemediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
>
>
>
>
> --
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
> ___
> Semediawiki-devel mailing list
> Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
>
>


-- 
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com
--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] Semantic Bundle and MW tarball

[jmcclure]

 

Hi - where can I find more information about how the MW installer
and the extensions it installs? And I'm also wondering what the criteria
are for an extension to be part of the "SMW bundle"? 

thanks - john


On 25.02.2013 12:01, Mark A. Hershberger wrote: 

> On Mon 25 Feb 2013
02:12:41 PM EST, Yaron Koren wrote:
> 
>> It sounds like a good idea to
me. What version of MediaWiki would you want to start with - 1.20 (the
current version), I assume?
> 
> At the latest, we could do 1.21.
Earliest I would go is 1.19. But 
> 1.20 is a good place to start.
> 
>
Since the MW installer can also install extensions (as it does for 
>
those it is shipped with) one thing we would need to do is make sure 
>
any shipping extensions can be installed with the installer. If the 
>
installer needs to be fixed, to do this then we'll have to limit this 
>
to 1.21 onwards (but it may be worthwhile to fix any bugs in 1.20 or 
>
1.19).
> 
>> And where do you think it makes sense to host and document
these packages?
> 
> I think it would make sense to host them with the
regular MediaWiki 
> tarballs, but assuming that isn't do-able (I would
need to ask and I 
> think Ariel already wanted to change were the
tarballs were hosted), 
> why not add them to the SF dowload page? Maybe
we could put them on 
> toolserver.org?
> 
> As far as documenting, I
think 
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Semantic_Bundle [1] and 
>
http://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Semantic_Bundle [2] make a lot of

> sense. Linking to the bundle page and download link from the front 
>
page of SMW.org also makes sense.
> 
> Of course, I'm open to any other
ideas you have for documentation and 
> hosting.
> 
> --
>
http://hexmode.com/ [3]
> 
> There is no path to peace. Peace is the
path.
> -- Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"
> 
>
--
>
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster
with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
>
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb [4]
>
___
> Semediawiki-devel
mailing list
> Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel [5]




Links:
--
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Semantic_Bundle
[2]
http://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Semantic_Bundle
[3]
http://hexmode.com/
[4] http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
[5]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] Semantic Bundle and MW tarball

[Mark A. Hershberger]

On Mon 25 Feb 2013 02:12:41 PM EST, Yaron Koren wrote:
> It sounds like a good idea to me. What version of MediaWiki would you
> want to start with - 1.20 (the current version), I assume?

At the latest, we could do 1.21.  Earliest I would go is 1.19.  But 
1.20 is a good place to start.

Since the MW installer can also install extensions (as it does for 
those it is shipped with) one thing we would need to do is make sure 
any shipping extensions can be installed with the installer.  If the 
installer needs to be fixed, to do this then we'll have to limit this 
to 1.21 onwards (but it may be worthwhile to fix any bugs in 1.20 or 
1.19).

> And where
> do you think it makes sense to host and document these packages?

I think it would make sense to host them with the regular MediaWiki 
tarballs, but assuming that isn't do-able (I would need to ask and I 
think Ariel already wanted to change were the tarballs were hosted), 
why not add them to the SF dowload page?  Maybe we could put them on 
toolserver.org?

As far as documenting, I think 
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Semantic_Bundle and 
http://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Semantic_Bundle make a lot of 
sense.  Linking to the bundle page and download link from the front 
page of SMW.org also makes sense.

Of course, I'm open to any other ideas you have for documentation and 
hosting.

--
http://hexmode.com/

There is no path to peace. Peace is the path.
   -- Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"


--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW and LTS

[Yaron Koren]

Hi Stephan,

Yes, I know that the the transfer to Git threw off a lot in terms of
consistent tagging - that's the main part of the reason why there have been
only two Semantic Bundle releases since the changeover happened a year ago.

In any case, anything you can do to improve the state of tagging and
compatibility is definitely appreciated!

-Yaron

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Stephan Gambke  wrote:

> Hi Yaron,
>
> On 02/25/2013 07:24 PM, Yaron Koren wrote:
> > As to creating new Semantic Bundles on the fly that match some criteria
> > - i.e., using some set of Git tags - that gets complicated by the fact
> > that not all of the extensions have consistent tagging. Some (like, I'm
>
> Yeah, that was one of the requirements to the developers - tag release
> versions of their extensions in git.
>
>
> > afraid to say, Semantic Forms Inputs, don't have any tags) - there are
>
> Ouch, that hurt. :D
> That's only because there was no release of SFI since the switch to git.
> Have a look at the old SVN repo and you will find tags galore.
>
>
> > the automatic tags applied for MediaWiki versions, but those are not
> > reliable as far as guaranteeing either compatibility or stability of the
> > code.
>
> Agreed, they will not help.
>
>
> > In general, ensuring the compatibility of Semantic Bundle is about the
> > level of difficulty one would expect for a package holding 22
> > extensions, with varying levels of maintenance for each. Of course, some
>
> Ok, I'd still like to give it a try. If it does not work, we are not
> worse off. If it does work, me pestering the devs might actually get
> them to tag their extensions consistently and think about and state
> compatibility.
>
> Cheers,
> Stephan
>



-- 
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com
--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] Semantic Bundle and MW tarball

[Yaron Koren]

Hi Mark,

It sounds like a good idea to me. What version of MediaWiki would you want
to start with - 1.20 (the current version), I assume? And where do you
think it makes sense to host and document these packages?

-Yaron

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:

> As Yaron suggested, this is a new thread to discuss possible MediaWiki
> tarballs shipping with the Semantic Bundle.
>
> Many people want to use SMW when they install MediaWiki, so shipping it
> all as one big bundle makes sense to me.  I think it would also makes
> some of the support issues easier.  For example, when looking for the
> Semantic Bundle that is targeted to MW 1.21, they wouldn't have to track
> down old versions, check dates, etc.  There would be a single file to
> download.
>
> Since most (all?) of the extensions in the Semantic Bundle are in git,
> it shouldn't be too hard to create one.
>
> --
> http://hexmode.com/
>
> There is no path to peace. Peace is the path.
>-- Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"
>
>
>
> --
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
> ___
> Semediawiki-devel mailing list
> Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
>



-- 
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com
--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW and LTS

[Stephan Gambke]

Hi Yaron,

On 02/25/2013 07:24 PM, Yaron Koren wrote:
> As to creating new Semantic Bundles on the fly that match some criteria
> - i.e., using some set of Git tags - that gets complicated by the fact
> that not all of the extensions have consistent tagging. Some (like, I'm

Yeah, that was one of the requirements to the developers - tag release
versions of their extensions in git.


> afraid to say, Semantic Forms Inputs, don't have any tags) - there are

Ouch, that hurt. :D
That's only because there was no release of SFI since the switch to git.
Have a look at the old SVN repo and you will find tags galore.


> the automatic tags applied for MediaWiki versions, but those are not
> reliable as far as guaranteeing either compatibility or stability of the
> code.

Agreed, they will not help.


> In general, ensuring the compatibility of Semantic Bundle is about the
> level of difficulty one would expect for a package holding 22
> extensions, with varying levels of maintenance for each. Of course, some

Ok, I'd still like to give it a try. If it does not work, we are not
worse off. If it does work, me pestering the devs might actually get
them to tag their extensions consistently and think about and state
compatibility.

Cheers,
Stephan

--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

[SMW-devel] Semantic Bundle and MW tarball

[Mark A. Hershberger]

As Yaron suggested, this is a new thread to discuss possible MediaWiki
tarballs shipping with the Semantic Bundle.

Many people want to use SMW when they install MediaWiki, so shipping it
all as one big bundle makes sense to me.  I think it would also makes
some of the support issues easier.  For example, when looking for the
Semantic Bundle that is targeted to MW 1.21, they wouldn't have to track
down old versions, check dates, etc.  There would be a single file to
download.

Since most (all?) of the extensions in the Semantic Bundle are in git,
it shouldn't be too hard to create one.

-- 
http://hexmode.com/

There is no path to peace. Peace is the path.
   -- Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"


--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW and LTS

[Yaron Koren]

Hi,

Stephan - you make a good point about being able to get a working SB for a
specific MediaWiki version. If you, or someone else, actually wanted an SB
version that worked with MediaWiki 1.16, I could probably get that by going
through all the tarballs for SB (they're all still available on the Google
Code site), looking through the version histories of all the extensions,
and matching up the dates. It would take some time, though.

As to creating new Semantic Bundles on the fly that match some criteria -
i.e., using some set of Git tags - that gets complicated by the fact that
not all of the extensions have consistent tagging. Some (like, I'm afraid
to say, Semantic Forms Inputs, don't have any tags) - there are the
automatic tags applied for MediaWiki versions, but those are not reliable
as far as guaranteeing either compatibility or stability of the code.

In general, ensuring the compatibility of Semantic Bundle is about the
level of difficulty one would expect for a package holding 22 extensions,
with varying levels of maintenance for each. Of course, some of these
extensions matter more than others - if, say, the Arrays extension doesn't
work, not that many people will notice. (No offense to Arrays users.) And
some extensions might be worth removing entirely - like Semantic Tasks, a
little-used extension that no longer seems to be maintained. Nevertheless,
trying to do anything sophisticated with the full set of extensions would
take a fair amount of work. On the other hand, having something simple,
like a link on the SB page to the best SB release for every MediaWiki
version, might not be that hard, and it could be quite helpful.

Mark - thanks for clarifying the LTS release thing. As for having releases
of MediaWiki and the Semantic Bundle together, it's an interesting idea,
though it probably belongs in a separate thread.

-Yaron

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:

> On 02/25/2013 10:23 AM, Yaron Koren wrote:
> > I don't know if everyone's aware of it, but the WMF people have
> > actually declared MediaWiki 1.19 to be the official LTS version for
> > the next two years - so people are supposed to be able to use 1.19 for
> > the next two years without any worries.
>
> Actually, that isn't the WMF people, but rather the Release Manager for
> MediaWiki -- namely me.   The MediaWiki community is going to be
> supporting this, not the WMF.  See
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/67466
> (the conversation is still going on).
>
> When I put together the 1.20 MediaWiki tarball, I tried to do one with
> the SMW Bundle but ran into problems.  Some of those have been fixed,
> but it would be great to have a MediaWiki tarball that includes the SMW
> Bundle as well.
>
> What do you think?
>
> --
> http://hexmode.com/
>
> There is no path to peace. Peace is the path.
>-- Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"
>
>


-- 
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com
--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW and LTS

[Mark A. Hershberger]

On 02/25/2013 10:23 AM, Yaron Koren wrote:
> I don't know if everyone's aware of it, but the WMF people have
> actually declared MediaWiki 1.19 to be the official LTS version for
> the next two years - so people are supposed to be able to use 1.19 for
> the next two years without any worries.

Actually, that isn't the WMF people, but rather the Release Manager for
MediaWiki -- namely me.   The MediaWiki community is going to be
supporting this, not the WMF.  See
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/67466
(the conversation is still going on).

When I put together the 1.20 MediaWiki tarball, I tried to do one with
the SMW Bundle but ran into problems.  Some of those have been fixed,
but it would be great to have a MediaWiki tarball that includes the SMW
Bundle as well.

What do you think?

-- 
http://hexmode.com/

There is no path to peace. Peace is the path.
   -- Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"


--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW and LTS

[Stephan Gambke]

Hi Yaron,

as I see it LTS for MW is mainly about applying bug fixes. The main
purpose of LTS for SMW would be to provide a working set of extensions
for a given configuration of MW and SMW. So LTS for SMW would indeed
mainly be about support for a given MW version. But it would also
apply to SMW, if for example somebody wanted to stick with the SMWSQL2
store for now (because they had an extension accessing the DB
directly).

Challenge for you: Please point me to the last Semantic Bundle
supporting MW 1.16. And when you have that, please provide me with a
package that contains all the latest releases of extensions still
working with MW 1.16.

I agree with you that extension developers should keep support for
older versions of MW and SMW. But they don't always do, you never
know. And even if most of them do, you would still have to check
extension by extension if it still supports your particular setup. And
if it does not, good luck in digging through the history of the wiki
page and trying to find the last version that did. And then extracting
it from git. Or finding the download package.

What I would like to have is bundles that for a few (two or three)
given configurations of MW and SMW provide the latest available
version of SB extensions. With this it would then be possible to
switch to the tag or branch for that bundle on git and just pull to
have the latest releases that still work with your setup.

Cheers,
Stephan


On 25 February 2013 16:23, Yaron Koren  wrote:
> Hi Stephan,
>
> There are a number of points to discuss here. In our case, I think long-term
> support really refers to two things: support for older versions of
> MediaWiki, and support for older versions of SMW. I don't know if everyone's
> aware of it, but the WMF people have actually declared MediaWiki 1.19 to be
> the official LTS version for the next two years - so people are supposed to
> be able to use 1.19 for the next two years without any worries. See here:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2012-November/064277.html
>
> In the case of the Semantic Bundle, only compatibility with MediaWiki
> matters, since SMW is included in the bundle. But then again, maybe everyone
> is just talking about support for MediaWiki?
>
> Anyway, the best approach for long-term support, in my opinion, is to have
> each extension individually maintain support for older versions of MediaWiki
> - especially version 1.19. (And for older versions of SMW, especially if
> some version of it is declared the LTS version.) That way there doesn't need
> to be special coordination done for the Semantic Bundle, and of course it
> means that the benefits still apply to people who download the extensions in
> other ways.
>
> I try to maintain support for older versions of MediaWiki in all my
> extensions, going back two or more years if possible. Currently most of my
> extensions support MediaWiki 1.17, which came out in June 2011 - and the
> jump to 1.17 was only because of the major change in that version with the
> ResourceLoader. It's not that hard to maintain backward compatibility, and I
> think it's the right option, when possible - certainly easier than holding
> different branches and trying to maintain all of them.
>
> I'm not unique in this - the Semantic Forms Inputs and Semantic Maps
> extensions, other SB extensions maintained by other people (both on this
> thread), also still support MediaWiki 1.17, for instance. And so does SMW
> itself, for that matter - though the SMW page says that MediaWiki 1.19 is
> "recommended", whatever that means.
>
> So could it be that the solution to this is to simply highly recommend to
> all extension developers to keep support for older versions of MediaWiki,
> now and in the future?
>
> -Yaron

--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW and LTS

[Yaron Koren]

Hi Stephan,

There are a number of points to discuss here. In our case, I think
long-term support really refers to two things: support for older versions
of MediaWiki, and support for older versions of SMW. I don't know if
everyone's aware of it, but the WMF people have actually declared MediaWiki
1.19 to be the official LTS version for the next two years - so people are
supposed to be able to use 1.19 for the next two years without any worries.
See here:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2012-November/064277.html

In the case of the Semantic Bundle, only compatibility with MediaWiki
matters, since SMW is included in the bundle. But then again, maybe
everyone is just talking about support for MediaWiki?

Anyway, the best approach for long-term support, in my opinion, is to have
each extension individually maintain support for older versions of
MediaWiki - especially version 1.19. (And for older versions of SMW,
especially if some version of it is declared the LTS version.) That way
there doesn't need to be special coordination done for the Semantic Bundle,
and of course it means that the benefits still apply to people who download
the extensions in other ways.

I try to maintain support for older versions of MediaWiki in all my
extensions, going back two or more years if possible. Currently most of my
extensions support MediaWiki 1.17, which came out in June 2011 - and the
jump to 1.17 was only because of the major change in that version with the
ResourceLoader. It's not that hard to maintain backward compatibility, and
I think it's the right option, when possible - certainly easier than
holding different branches and trying to maintain all of them.

I'm not unique in this - the Semantic Forms Inputs and Semantic Maps
extensions, other SB extensions maintained by other people (both on this
thread), also still support MediaWiki 1.17, for instance. And so does SMW
itself, for that matter - though the SMW page says that MediaWiki 1.19 is
"recommended", whatever that means.

So could it be that the solution to this is to simply highly recommend to
all extension developers to keep support for older versions of MediaWiki,
now and in the future?

-Yaron

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Stephan Gambke  wrote:

> Ok, digging this out again.
>
> On 5 December 2012 22:39, James HK  wrote:
> > # What would LTS mean in connection with SMW ?
>
> Provide LTS versions of the Semantic Bundle.
>
> This would mean:
> * to branch off versions* of SMW
> * to include updated versions of extensions in the Semantic Bundle as
> long as they support the relevant SMW version
> * to branch off versions of these extensions once they stop supporting
> the relevant SMW version
> * to clearly state extensions contained in the bundle including their
> versions
> * to clearly state compatibility of the bundle to MW versions
> * to apply patches to contained extensions if somebody provides them
>
> * Considered versions of SMW would be the last minor versions before
> the release of a new major version of SMW, i.e. 1.5.6, 1.6.1, 1.7.1,
> ...
> Of these only take one per year and support it for two(?) years. This
> would mean 1.6.1 (2011), 1.8 (2012), and 1.10 (2013).
>
>
> > # Which implications would LTS have on future developments ?
>
> Extension developers should anounce new versions of their extensions
> stating compatibility of their extension to MW and SMW. They should
> tag release versions of their extensions in git.
> They should also think about if a bug or feature is important enough
> to be backported.
>
> > # Why would SMW need/want to support a LTS infrastructure ? What would
> > be the benefit ?
>
> Availability of stable Semantic Bundles on older MWs, giving people
> more time to plan their updates and allow them to do updates less
> often.
>
>
> > # Who will do LTS for SMW and what infrastructure is needed to support
> > LTS (own branch etc.)
>
> I would do the administration work incl. applying patches. I would in
> general not do backporting.
>
> I would propose to keep download versions on Google Code along with
> the regular packages and document the contents on
> semantic-mediawiki.org and/or mediawiki.org, e.g. as subpages of the
> extension page.
>
>
> > # Would LTS mean a freeze release or do features from a development
> > branch are back ported to a LTS?
>
> See above. Basically freeze for SMW and extensions that don't support
> the frozen SMW anymore. Patches applied if provided.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> > # SMW 1.8 supports MW 1.17/1.18+
> > # SMW 1.9 is planned to support MW  1.19/1.20/1.21 / PHP 5.3 or greater
> > # SMW 1.10 is planned to support MW 1.20 (or 1.21 pending on the release
> date)
>
> Maybe think about that again. SMW 1.6 to 1.8 all supported up to two
> year old MW versions. With the roadmap as it is this would drop to one
> year for 1.9.
>
> SMW -> MW: Delay
> 1.6   (30/07/2011) -> 1.15 (25/03/2009): 2.3 years
> 1.6.1 (20/08/2011) -> 1.15 (25/03/2009): 2.4 years
> 1.7   (01/0

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW and LTS

[Neill Mitchell]

This all sounds very sensible Stephan.

Gives stability to those who need it and flexibility to those who want to run 
more bleeding edge versions.

Cheers
Neill

Stephan Gambke  wrote:

>Ok, digging this out again.
>
>On 5 December 2012 22:39, James HK 
>wrote:
>> # What would LTS mean in connection with SMW ?
>
>Provide LTS versions of the Semantic Bundle.
>
>This would mean:
>* to branch off versions* of SMW
>* to include updated versions of extensions in the Semantic Bundle as
>long as they support the relevant SMW version
>* to branch off versions of these extensions once they stop supporting
>the relevant SMW version
>* to clearly state extensions contained in the bundle including their
>versions
>* to clearly state compatibility of the bundle to MW versions
>* to apply patches to contained extensions if somebody provides them
>
>* Considered versions of SMW would be the last minor versions before
>the release of a new major version of SMW, i.e. 1.5.6, 1.6.1, 1.7.1,
>...
>Of these only take one per year and support it for two(?) years. This
>would mean 1.6.1 (2011), 1.8 (2012), and 1.10 (2013).
>
>
>> # Which implications would LTS have on future developments ?
>
>Extension developers should anounce new versions of their extensions
>stating compatibility of their extension to MW and SMW. They should
>tag release versions of their extensions in git.
>They should also think about if a bug or feature is important enough
>to be backported.
>
>> # Why would SMW need/want to support a LTS infrastructure ? What
>would
>> be the benefit ?
>
>Availability of stable Semantic Bundles on older MWs, giving people
>more time to plan their updates and allow them to do updates less
>often.
>
>
>> # Who will do LTS for SMW and what infrastructure is needed to
>support
>> LTS (own branch etc.)
>
>I would do the administration work incl. applying patches. I would in
>general not do backporting.
>
>I would propose to keep download versions on Google Code along with
>the regular packages and document the contents on
>semantic-mediawiki.org and/or mediawiki.org, e.g. as subpages of the
>extension page.
>
>
>> # Would LTS mean a freeze release or do features from a development
>> branch are back ported to a LTS?
>
>See above. Basically freeze for SMW and extensions that don't support
>the frozen SMW anymore. Patches applied if provided.
>
>What do you think?
>
>
>> # SMW 1.8 supports MW 1.17/1.18+
>> # SMW 1.9 is planned to support MW  1.19/1.20/1.21 / PHP 5.3 or
>greater
>> # SMW 1.10 is planned to support MW 1.20 (or 1.21 pending on the
>release date)
>
>Maybe think about that again. SMW 1.6 to 1.8 all supported up to two
>year old MW versions. With the roadmap as it is this would drop to one
>year for 1.9.
>
>SMW -> MW: Delay
>1.6   (30/07/2011) -> 1.15 (25/03/2009): 2.3 years
>1.6.1 (20/08/2011) -> 1.15 (25/03/2009): 2.4 years
>1.7   (01/01/2012) -> 1.16 (22/02/2010): 1.9 years
>1.7.1 (05/03/2012) -> 1.16 (22/02/2010) 2.0 years
>1.8   (02/12/2012) -> 1.17 (07/12/2010): 2.0 years
>1.9   (15/03/2013) -> 1.19 (09/02/2012): 1.1 years
>1.10  (15/08/2013) -> 1.19 (09/02/2012): 1.5 years
>
>Cheers,
>Stephan
>
>--
>Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
>Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
>Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
>http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
>___
>Semediawiki-devel mailing list
>Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] SMW and LTS

[Stephan Gambke]

Ok, digging this out again.

On 5 December 2012 22:39, James HK  wrote:
> # What would LTS mean in connection with SMW ?

Provide LTS versions of the Semantic Bundle.

This would mean:
* to branch off versions* of SMW
* to include updated versions of extensions in the Semantic Bundle as
long as they support the relevant SMW version
* to branch off versions of these extensions once they stop supporting
the relevant SMW version
* to clearly state extensions contained in the bundle including their versions
* to clearly state compatibility of the bundle to MW versions
* to apply patches to contained extensions if somebody provides them

* Considered versions of SMW would be the last minor versions before
the release of a new major version of SMW, i.e. 1.5.6, 1.6.1, 1.7.1,
...
Of these only take one per year and support it for two(?) years. This
would mean 1.6.1 (2011), 1.8 (2012), and 1.10 (2013).


> # Which implications would LTS have on future developments ?

Extension developers should anounce new versions of their extensions
stating compatibility of their extension to MW and SMW. They should
tag release versions of their extensions in git.
They should also think about if a bug or feature is important enough
to be backported.

> # Why would SMW need/want to support a LTS infrastructure ? What would
> be the benefit ?

Availability of stable Semantic Bundles on older MWs, giving people
more time to plan their updates and allow them to do updates less
often.


> # Who will do LTS for SMW and what infrastructure is needed to support
> LTS (own branch etc.)

I would do the administration work incl. applying patches. I would in
general not do backporting.

I would propose to keep download versions on Google Code along with
the regular packages and document the contents on
semantic-mediawiki.org and/or mediawiki.org, e.g. as subpages of the
extension page.


> # Would LTS mean a freeze release or do features from a development
> branch are back ported to a LTS?

See above. Basically freeze for SMW and extensions that don't support
the frozen SMW anymore. Patches applied if provided.

What do you think?


> # SMW 1.8 supports MW 1.17/1.18+
> # SMW 1.9 is planned to support MW  1.19/1.20/1.21 / PHP 5.3 or greater
> # SMW 1.10 is planned to support MW 1.20 (or 1.21 pending on the release date)

Maybe think about that again. SMW 1.6 to 1.8 all supported up to two
year old MW versions. With the roadmap as it is this would drop to one
year for 1.9.

SMW -> MW: Delay
1.6   (30/07/2011) -> 1.15 (25/03/2009): 2.3 years
1.6.1 (20/08/2011) -> 1.15 (25/03/2009): 2.4 years
1.7   (01/01/2012) -> 1.16 (22/02/2010): 1.9 years
1.7.1 (05/03/2012) -> 1.16 (22/02/2010) 2.0 years
1.8   (02/12/2012) -> 1.17 (07/12/2010): 2.0 years
1.9   (15/03/2013) -> 1.19 (09/02/2012): 1.1 years
1.10  (15/08/2013) -> 1.19 (09/02/2012): 1.5 years

Cheers,
Stephan

--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel