[Wikitech-l] piwigo like
Hi, I wanted to integrate piwigo in my mediawiki website, however, the piwigo api does not permit to do it easily and furthermore it as some similar functions to mediawiki. So, I began setting up my mediawiki to act as piwigo , using some extensions, I have got few questions to finish it : a) Do you thing it will be better to put a namespace or use of category to setup photo web page ? b) Is there a way to have a different toolbox setted up, when using specific namespace or category c) I know how to setup a gallery, but is there a way to setup a primary article displaying only the first image of the gallery ? Best Regards S.Ancelot ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code coverage statistics
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 to allow the parser to parse, ParserTests is happy: I wouldn't be confident to say that it "tests" anything outside of Parser.php; as you say, it only marks lines 'visited'. --HM "dan nessett" wrote in message news:922893.25678...@web32507.mail.mud.yahoo.com... > > I failed to mention that xdebug ignores non-executable lines of code. So, > the statistics are for executable lines of code and do not include lines > like comments (in either the covered or uncovered counts). > > --- On Wed, 7/29/09, dan nessett wrote: > >> From: dan nessett >> Subject: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code coverage statistics >> To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 4:36 PM >> >> 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 can look them over. >> In the next couple of days I hope to post more detailed >> results and the tools themselves on the Mediawiki wiki. (If >> someone could tell me the appropriate page to use that would >> be useful. Otherwise, I will just create a page in my own >> namespace). >> >> The statistics (again very preliminary) are: >> >> Number of files exercised: 141 Number of lines in >> those files: 85606 >> Lines covered: 59489 Lines not covered: 26117 >> Percentage covered: 0.694916244188 >> >> So, parserTests is getting (at best) about 70% code >> coverage. This is better than I expected, but still it means >> parserTests does not test 26117 lines of code. What I mean >> by "at best" is xdebug just notes whether a line of code is >> visited. It doesn't do any logic analysis on which branches >> are taken. Furthermore, parserTests may not visit some files >> that are critical to the operation of the MW software. >> Obviously, xdebug can only gather statistics on visited >> files. >> >> I want to emphasize that there may be errors in these >> results due to bad assumptions on my part or bad coding. >> However, it is a place to start. >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >> > > > = ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Gallery weirdness in Chrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tronador&oldid=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 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Gallery weirdness in Chrome
Hoi, It looks like that in Firefox on Ubuntu as well Thanks, GerardM 2009/7/30 Steve Bennett > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tronador&oldid=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 > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Gallery weirdness in Chrome
Confirmed in FF 3.5, WinXP. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code coverage statistics
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 can look them over. In the next > couple of days I hope to post more detailed results and the tools themselves > on the Mediawiki wiki. (If someone could tell me the appropriate page to use > that would be useful. Otherwise, I will just create a page in my own > namespace). > > The statistics (again very preliminary) are: > > Number of files exercised: 141 Number of lines in those files: 85606 > Lines covered: 59489 Lines not covered: 26117 Percentage covered: > 0.694916244188 > > So, parserTests is getting (at best) about 70% code coverage. This is better > than I expected, but still it means parserTests does not test 26117 lines of > code. What I mean by "at best" is xdebug just notes whether a line of code is > visited. It doesn't do any logic analysis on which branches are taken. > Furthermore, parserTests may not visit some files that are critical to the > operation of the MW software. Obviously, xdebug can only gather statistics on > visited files. > > I want to emphasize that there may be errors in these results due to bad > assumptions on my part or bad coding. However, it is a place to start. > Well, they are *parser* tests, they are not intended to cover Special:Version or something else. --vvv ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] secure seems to be intermittent / very flaky right now
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 Wikipedia; this would have affected both secure and non-secure web views, causing some slow response and intermittent errors about database connection failures. -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Gallery weirdness in Chrome
On 7/30/09 4:39 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tronador&oldid=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 is centered instead of top, so you see different placement depending on how much caption there is. Trevor, have we fixed this on dev trunk or is this a new one? -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code coverage statistics
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, 7/30/09, Victor Vasiliev wrote: > From: Victor Vasiliev > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code coverage statistics > To: "Wikimedia developers" > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 1:28 AM > 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 > can look them over. In the next couple of days I hope to > post more detailed results and the tools themselves on the > Mediawiki wiki. (If someone could tell me the appropriate > page to use that would be useful. Otherwise, I will just > create a page in my own namespace). > > > > The statistics (again very preliminary) are: > > > > Number of files exercised: 141 Number of lines > in those files: 85606 > > Lines covered: 59489 Lines not covered: > 26117 Percentage covered: 0.694916244188 > > > > So, parserTests is getting (at best) about 70% code > coverage. This is better than I expected, but still it means > parserTests does not test 26117 lines of code. What I mean > by "at best" is xdebug just notes whether a line of code is > visited. It doesn't do any logic analysis on which branches > are taken. Furthermore, parserTests may not visit some files > that are critical to the operation of the MW software. > Obviously, xdebug can only gather statistics on visited > files. > > > > I want to emphasize that there may be errors in these > results due to bad assumptions on my part or bad coding. > However, it is a place to start. > > > > Well, they are *parser* tests, they are not intended to > cover > Special:Version or something else. > > --vvv > > ___ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code coverage statistics
I have no argument with your points. However, figuring out the code coverage of parserTests is low hanging fruit, i.e., relatively easy to determine and at least somewhat valuable. By knowing which files are touched by parserTests and how much of their code is covered is a first step in figuring out what needs to be done (e.g., identifying those files that parserTests doesn't even visit). After all, parserTests is all we have at the moment. --- On Thu, 7/30/09, Happy-melon wrote: > From: Happy-melon > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code coverage statistics > To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 4:26 AM > 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 to allow the parser to parse, ParserTests is happy: > I wouldn't be > confident to say that it "tests" anything outside of > Parser.php; as you say, > it only marks lines 'visited'. > > --HM > > "dan nessett" > wrote in message > news:922893.25678...@web32507.mail.mud.yahoo.com... > > > > I failed to mention that xdebug ignores non-executable > lines of code. So, > > the statistics are for executable lines of code and do > not include lines > > like comments (in either the covered or uncovered > counts). > > > > --- On Wed, 7/29/09, dan nessett > wrote: > > > >> From: dan nessett > >> Subject: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code coverage > statistics > >> To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 4:36 PM > >> > >> 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 can look > them over. > >> In the next couple of days I hope to post more > detailed > >> results and the tools themselves on the Mediawiki > wiki. (If > >> someone could tell me the appropriate page to use > that would > >> be useful. Otherwise, I will just create a page in > my own > >> namespace). > >> > >> The statistics (again very preliminary) are: > >> > >> Number of files exercised: 141 Number of > lines in > >> those files: 85606 > >> Lines covered: 59489 Lines not covered: > 26117 > >> Percentage covered: 0.694916244188 > >> > >> So, parserTests is getting (at best) about 70% > code > >> coverage. This is better than I expected, but > still it means > >> parserTests does not test 26117 lines of code. > What I mean > >> by "at best" is xdebug just notes whether a line > of code is > >> visited. It doesn't do any logic analysis on which > branches > >> are taken. Furthermore, parserTests may not visit > some files > >> that are critical to the operation of the MW > software. > >> Obviously, xdebug can only gather statistics on > visited > >> files. > >> > >> I want to emphasize that there may be errors in > these > >> results due to bad assumptions on my part or bad > coding. > >> However, it is a place to start. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> Wikitech-l mailing list > >> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >> > > > > > > = > > > > ___ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code coverage statistics
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:53 AM, 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, 7/30/09, Victor Vasiliev wrote: > >> From: Victor Vasiliev >> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code coverage statistics >> To: "Wikimedia developers" >> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 1:28 AM >> 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 >> can look them over. In the next couple of days I hope to >> post more detailed results and the tools themselves on the >> Mediawiki wiki. (If someone could tell me the appropriate >> page to use that would be useful. Otherwise, I will just >> create a page in my own namespace). >> > >> > The statistics (again very preliminary) are: >> > >> > Number of files exercised: 141 Number of lines >> in those files: 85606 >> > Lines covered: 59489 Lines not covered: >> 26117 Percentage covered: 0.694916244188 >> > >> > So, parserTests is getting (at best) about 70% code >> coverage. This is better than I expected, but still it means >> parserTests does not test 26117 lines of code. What I mean >> by "at best" is xdebug just notes whether a line of code is >> visited. It doesn't do any logic analysis on which branches >> are taken. Furthermore, parserTests may not visit some files >> that are critical to the operation of the MW software. >> Obviously, xdebug can only gather statistics on visited >> files. >> > >> > I want to emphasize that there may be errors in these >> results due to bad assumptions on my part or bad coding. >> However, it is a place to start. >> > >> >> Well, they are *parser* tests, they are not intended to >> cover >> Special:Version or something else. >> >> --vvv >> >> ___ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >> > > > > > ___ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > For more generic unit tests, check out the stuff in /t/ and /tests/ Those could probably use improvement. -Chad ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code coverage statistics
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 wrote: > From: Chad > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code coverage statistics > To: "Wikimedia developers" > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 8:18 AM > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:53 AM, 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, 7/30/09, Victor Vasiliev > wrote: > > > >> From: Victor Vasiliev > >> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code > coverage statistics > >> To: "Wikimedia developers" > >> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 1:28 AM > >> 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 > >> can look them over. In the next couple of days I > hope to > >> post more detailed results and the tools > themselves on the > >> Mediawiki wiki. (If someone could tell me the > appropriate > >> page to use that would be useful. Otherwise, I > will just > >> create a page in my own namespace). > >> > > >> > The statistics (again very preliminary) are: > >> > > >> > Number of files exercised: 141 Number of > lines > >> in those files: 85606 > >> > Lines covered: 59489 Lines not covered: > >> 26117 Percentage covered: 0.694916244188 > >> > > >> > So, parserTests is getting (at best) about > 70% code > >> coverage. This is better than I expected, but > still it means > >> parserTests does not test 26117 lines of code. > What I mean > >> by "at best" is xdebug just notes whether a line > of code is > >> visited. It doesn't do any logic analysis on which > branches > >> are taken. Furthermore, parserTests may not visit > some files > >> that are critical to the operation of the MW > software. > >> Obviously, xdebug can only gather statistics on > visited > >> files. > >> > > >> > I want to emphasize that there may be errors > in these > >> results due to bad assumptions on my part or bad > coding. > >> However, it is a place to start. > >> > > >> > >> Well, they are *parser* tests, they are not > intended to > >> cover > >> Special:Version or something else. > >> > >> --vvv > >> > >> ___ > >> Wikitech-l mailing list > >> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >> > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > > For more generic unit tests, check out the stuff in /t/ and > /tests/ > Those could probably use improvement. > > -Chad > > ___ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
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. Can we please have a the WMF deployment branch be a branch of an untainted branch of the particular revision that is considered stable? Many thanks! /Brian ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
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 developers who already don't have enough time to spoon feed you information they don't have. The WMF deployment branch is already well beyond what end users should expect. -- Robert Leverington http://rhl.me.uk/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Robert Leverington wrote: > 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 developers > who already don't have enough time to spoon feed you information they > don't have. The WMF deployment branch is already well beyond what end > users should expect. > > -- > Robert Leverington > http://rhl.me.uk/ > 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. Additionally, I strongly disagree with your definition of the code being used on Wikipedia as beyond stable. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:19 PM, 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 is now full of WMF specific hacks. > Can we please have a the WMF deployment branch be a branch of an untainted > branch of the particular revision that is considered stable? > ِAsking too much? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code coverage statistics
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. The parser test is a test of the parser. The parser tests do not, have not, and will not cover anything other than the parser. Measuring code coverage as a percentage of *core* is a really bad idea. Try checking the percentage of includes/parser/ covered. -- Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org http://werdn.us/ ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Mohamed Magdy wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:19 PM, 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 is now full of WMF specific > hacks. > > Can we please have a the WMF deployment branch be a branch of an > untainted > > branch of the particular revision that is considered stable? > > > > ِAsking too much? > Until recently there was only trunk. It had been a long standing but unattained goal that the trunk was the live, relatively stable code being run on the site. This was never actually the case, and the deployed code began to fall farther and farther behind trunk. Many people began to complain that there was no reliable way to be sure they were running the same code as on Wikipedia, which is desirable for a variety of reasons. A deployment branch was created. Brion and others are aware that others are running the deployment branch and they did not object, nor advise us not to. But now the deployment branch has foundation specific hacks. Thus, it is desirable that there be another branch available that is marked read only in svn. There are a few ways to implement this, one being a read only branch of the stable revision that is further branched into the wmf-deployment branch. Another implementation is simply to create two branches. I don't think it's asking that much. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
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 extension generally worked with branched versions of MediaWiki? If this isn't the case then it should be fixed. > Additionally, I strongly disagree with your definition of the code being > used on Wikipedia as beyond stable. Code in trunk is under development, that is what defines trunk - it hasn't been tested to the same level as releases. Although I think this is case where everyone will have different opinions, I'm not sure of the current official stance. -- Robert Leverington http://rhl.me.uk/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Robert Leverington wrote: > 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 > extension generally worked with branched versions of MediaWiki? If this > isn't the case then it should be fixed. > I'm simply referring to the particular versions of extensions that work with particular versions of MediaWiki. > > > Additionally, I strongly disagree with your definition of the code being > > used on Wikipedia as beyond stable. > > Code in trunk is under development, that is what defines trunk - it > hasn't been tested to the same level as releases. Although I think this > is case where everyone will have different opinions, I'm not sure of the > current official stance. > Trunk has been de facto unstable for a long time and now it really is unstable. For example, when they merged in the upload branch lots of things broke. Now there is a deployment branch which *is* stable. Some may argue of this definition of stability, but it is a de facto stability. The code being run on the 8th largest website in the world is stable. Some of that code isn't needed, or isn't desirable, in the mediawiki installations that the rest of us use. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
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" wrote: On 2009-07-30, Brian wrote: > The versioning interactions between mediawiki and its extensions are so > complicated that it is s... Please can you explain more; last time I tried, branched versions of extension generally worked with branched versions of MediaWiki? If this isn't the case then it should be fixed. > Additionally, I strongly disagree with your definition of the code being > used on Wikipedia as b... Code in trunk is under development, that is what defines trunk - it hasn't been tested to the same level as releases. Although I think this is case where everyone will have different opinions, I'm not sure of the current official stance. -- Robert Leverington http://rhl.me.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKcdAz4JQkxUaZzvQRAlM1AJwPsCR863RrLDC5ppVwtJ2Sca9DhACfa0Vs QGJBO2ao9Xq4dFLnPcFmGJc= =uLbh -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Statistics now on MediaWiki page
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 appreciate it if someone familiar with the parser would at least glance at the per file statistics for a sanity check. Some things that worry me are: * parserTests seems to visit Special:Nuke. Does this make sense? * Only about 72% of Parser.php is exercised. Is this reasonable? * Xdebug is reporting that the Parser only has 2975 lines of executable code. This contrasts to the report by Happy-Mellon that there is 11,000 lines of code in Parser.php. Are there really that many non-executable lines of code in the parser or is Xdebug missing a whole bunch? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Chad 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 I'm still waiting on the rational rejection of the need for a deployment branch of mediawiki for the rest of us. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Brian wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Chad 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 > > > I'm still waiting on the rational rejection of the need for a deployment > branch of mediawiki for the rest of us. > > I would also like to note that given how trivial it is to create such a branch it is hardly worth a long argument. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
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 is now full of WMF specific hacks. > Can we please have a the WMF deployment branch be a branch of an untainted > branch of the particular revision that is considered stable? I think you miss the point of the deployment branch, which is to give everyone clean and direct access to and versioning of our actually-deployed software, so we can maintain it easily and other folks can get access to it easily. It's never been, nor been meant to be, anything else. **Note that dev trunk and the release branches have WMF-specific hacks too!** 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 site-specific hacks, just as dev trunk and release versions shouldn't. But the deployment branch, BY DEFINITION, is what we're running in production. -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Brion Vibber 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 Wikipedia, but not trunk. Unfortunately > the > > deployment branch has been subverted and is now full of WMF specific > hacks. > > Can we please have a the WMF deployment branch be a branch of an > untainted > > branch of the particular revision that is considered stable? > > I think you miss the point of the deployment branch, which is to give > everyone clean and direct access to and versioning of our > actually-deployed software, so we can maintain it easily and other folks > can get access to it easily. > > It's never been, nor been meant to be, anything else. > > **Note that dev trunk and the release branches have WMF-specific hacks > too!** > > 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 site-specific hacks, just as dev > trunk and release versions shouldn't. But the deployment branch, BY > DEFINITION, is what we're running in production. > > -- brion > Thanks for the clarification. I will file bugs for these issues in the future, then. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
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 site-specific hacks, just as dev >> trunk and release versions shouldn't. But the deployment branch, BY >> DEFINITION, is what we're running in production. > > Thanks for the clarification. I will file bugs for these issues in the > future, then. Awesome, thanks! :D My ideal is certainly that wmf-deployment should just be a delayed mirror of trunk 99% of the time. -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Downtime due to network maintenance, Friday July 31st 12:00 UTC
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. Unfortunately this means that practically all sites and services will be down during that time. For those interested: one of the line cards in the router failed earlier this week. A replacement has arrived, but does not boot up correctly after hot plugging. Because we want to upgrade the firmware anyway, we will reboot the entire box. Cheers, -- Mark Bergsma System & Network Administrator, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
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 when you complain that it's not being done fast enough. -- Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org http://werdn.us/ ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote: > > 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 when > you complain that it's not being done fast enough. > > -- > Andrew Garrett > agarr...@wikimedia.org > http://werdn.us/ > You seem confused, perhaps you should re-read the thread. I never asked anyone to do anything except make a branch. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
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 these aren't things that a single person can answer, which is one reason why we have a multiple release canidate policy when declaring versions stable. -- Robert Leverington http://rhl.me.uk/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A deployment branch for the rest of us
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Robert Leverington wrote: > 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 these aren't things that a single person can answer, which is > one reason why we have a multiple release canidate policy when declaring > versions stable. > > -- > Robert Leverington > http://rhl.me.uk/ > > Fair enough. I was moreso referring to the hoity toity attitude that gasps at the fact that someone might file a bug report rather than fixing it themselves, or makes assumptions about who the bug would be assigned to. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
