[Wikitech-l] downloading wikipedia database dumps
Hi, I have a suggestion for wikipedia!! I think that the database dumps including the image files should be made available by a wikipedia bittorrent tracker so that people would be able to download the wikipedia backups including the images (which currently they can't do) and also so that wikipedia's bandwidth costs would be reduced. I think it is important that wikipedia can be downloaded for using it offline now and in the future for people. best regards, Jamie Morken ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
2010/1/7 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com: The historical position has been that absolutely nothing goes into the WMF software pool unless it is open source. As I recall, the only recognized exception was the closed source firmware running the routers at the server farm. By that standard, even a freebie is not good enough if the system is closed source. However, my recollection is based on discussions years ago. On searching, I couldn't find any policy forbidding closed source software (is there one?). So, it is possible that closed source might be looked on as a more acceptable possibility for some functions now (though I wouldn't bet on it). The reasoning is that having the data be free content is not enough - the systems you need to use the data need to be free software as well. Lucene is free software, but was out for a while as Java wasn't free software then. I believe we used a rewritten version in C# for a while, in fact. A Java version of Lucene started being used again when Java was in the process of being freed up, I think we were using it before there was an entirely free software Java. (corrections welcomed!) - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 6:59 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: The reasoning is that having the data be free content is not enough - the systems you need to use the data need to be free software as well. Strictly speaking though, the bug tracking software for Mediawiki isn't actually part of the chain of systems responsible for running Wikipedia. As far as I know no one has ever tried to duplicate Mediawiki's bugzilla or even wanted to. So, if one was going to make an exception, then this seems like an area that could be considered, but I don't know of any really strong arguments for why closed source would be necessary in this case. -Robert Rohde ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
I would prefer something that would tightly integrate with CodeReview, but that probably means writing custom software, which is a lot of work. Bryan ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongm...@gmail.com wrote: I would prefer something that would tightly integrate with CodeReview, but that probably means writing custom software, which is a lot of work. I think atlassian is happy to provide Jira as well as other tools for WMF, just like they do for other opensource projects. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
Bryan Tong Minh wrote: I would prefer something that would tightly integrate with CodeReview, but that probably means writing custom software, which is a lot of work. Bryan Is it that hard? The basic features (add comments, dependencies, email notifications...) are quite straightforward. A bugzilla extension would fix the skin issues and the not-really wikisyntax comments. It means recreating everything from the ground up, though. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] downloading wikipedia database dumps
Jamie Morken wrote: Hi, I have a suggestion for wikipedia!! I think that the database dumps including the image files should be made available by a wikipedia bittorrent tracker so that people would be able to download the wikipedia backups including the images (which currently they can't do) and also so that wikipedia's bandwidth costs would be reduced. I think it is important that wikipedia can be downloaded for using it offline now and in the future for people. best regards, Jamie Morken Has been tried before (when they were smaller). How many people do you think will have the necessary space and be willing to download it? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] downloading wikipedia database dumps
I have been using the dumps for few months and I think this kind of dumps is much better than a torrent. Yes bandwidth can be saved but I do not think the the cost of bandwidth is higher than the cost of maintaining the torrents. If people are not hosting the files so the value of torrents is limited. I think regular mirroring is much better but it all depends on the willingness of people to host the files. bilal -- Verily, with hardship comes ease. On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote: Jamie Morken wrote: Hi, I have a suggestion for wikipedia!! I think that the database dumps including the image files should be made available by a wikipedia bittorrent tracker so that people would be able to download the wikipedia backups including the images (which currently they can't do) and also so that wikipedia's bandwidth costs would be reduced. I think it is important that wikipedia can be downloaded for using it offline now and in the future for people. best regards, Jamie Morken Has been tried before (when they were smaller). How many people do you think will have the necessary space and be willing to download it? ___ 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] downloading wikipedia database dumps
On 01/07/2010 01:40 AM, Jamie Morken wrote: I have a suggestion for wikipedia!! I think that the database dumps including the image files should be made available by a wikipedia bittorrent tracker so that people would be able to download the wikipedia backups including the images (which currently they can't do) and also so that wikipedia's bandwidth costs would be reduced. [...] Is the bandwidth used really a big problem? Bandwidth is pretty cheap these days, and given Wikipedia's total draw, I suspect the occasional dump download isn't much of a problem. Bittorrent's real strength is when a lot of people want to download the same thing at once. E.g., when a new Ubuntu release comes out. Since Bittorrent requires all downloaders to be uploaders, it turns the flood of users into a benefit. But unless somebody has stats otherwise, I'd guess that isn't the problem here. William ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: That is apparently fixed in the newer versions, where you can set it up to hide the more advanced stuff on forms and stuff unless people want to use it and have forms that can only be touched if another one is. We do have a running testbed for the new version somewhere on the WMF servers, its address is in one of the bug reports requesting the upgrade. New version of what? Bugzilla? I assume Mozilla's is roughly the latest version. That one is definitely better than ours, but still pretty confusing to normal people, compared to something like Launchpad or Google Issues. On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Mike.lifeguard mike.lifegu...@gmail.com wrote: Launchpad is (I think) still undergoing lots of changes. It may be opensourced now, but I'm not sure it is ready. I actually have UI complaints... since this request is at least in part coming from folks on the usability team, I wonder what they think of Launchpad. Maybe I'm hallucinating usability issues. Well, workflow is just a lot smoother for common things. So for instance, to subscribe, just click Subscribe and it works immediately via AJAX. On Bugzilla you have to type in your e-mail address in the CC field, or scroll all the way to the bottom and check the box and hit Submit and hope you didn't change anything else by mistake at the same time, and hope that no one else changed anything at the same time so you avoid a mid-air collision. Mark as duplicate is similarly simple. And it's just organized more intuitively. Compare: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/18305 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=235115 On Bugzilla you have to scroll through more than a page of mysterious fields (at my resolution) before you ever get to the actual bug description. Launchpad has most things neatly tucked away at the side. People are identified by names instead of e-mails. Status changes are noted inline in the comment that accompanies them instead of being hidden in a separate activity history. It's just . . . way better. On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: The historical position has been that absolutely nothing goes into the WMF software pool unless it is open source. As I recall, the only recognized exception was the closed source firmware running the routers at the server farm. By that standard, even a freebie is not good enough if the system is closed source. Obviously this is not the current position, because the image servers run Solaris. The position was always to use open-source software *unless* no OSS met Wikimedia's needs. This was (is) the case for routers. It was also the case for Java before it was open-source, AFAIK just because Robert was more comfortable with Java Lucene than CLucene and you have to take volunteers where you can get them. Although the switch to Solaris wasn't discussed anywhere in public as far as I know, my impression is that it happened after we lost a whole bunch of images due to programming error, for the sake of being able to use ZFS snapshots. I'm also not sure who would enforce such a policy with Brion no longer CTO. I note Priyanka's initial requirements just said Free, and ^demon changed that to Free (Beer and Speech). Personally, I would like to see Wikimedia stick to all OSS. Wikimedia's goal is to advance free knowledge, and supporting free software advances that goal, at least construed in a broad sense. Every high-profile user to any given open-source project helps that project and thereby OSS as a whole. But I'm not making the decisions here. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
Hi, this is slightly off-topic, but I'll go ahead anyway: Please don't make bugzilla (or any future bug tracker) look like MediaWiki (Monobook skin). What looks like a Wiki (but aren't) often gets confused with a Wiki. Buzgilla is not a Wiki. It's a bug tracker. I know it's nice to have a familiar design on different pages, but this is just confusing for newbies. A distinguishable design prevents confusions. Regards, Church of emacs signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
2010/1/7 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: The historical position has been that absolutely nothing goes into the WMF software pool unless it is open source. As I recall, the only recognized exception was the closed source firmware running the routers at the server farm. By that standard, even a freebie is not good enough if the system is closed source. Obviously this is not the current position, because the image servers run Solaris. I understand they run OpenSolaris, which is free software. - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
Hi, Mike.lifeguard a écrit : On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Priyanka Dhanda wrote: Guillaume and Naoko have expressed a need for a Project Management Tool What exactly does Project Management Tool encompass? See the project management section of http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Tracker/PM_tool :) -- Guillaume Paumier ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On 1/7/10 10:55 AM, church.of.emacs.ml wrote: Hi, this is slightly off-topic, but I'll go ahead anyway: Please don't make bugzilla (or any future bug tracker) look like MediaWiki (Monobook skin). What looks like a Wiki (but aren't) often gets confused with a Wiki. Buzgilla is not a Wiki. It's a bug tracker. I know it's nice to have a familiar design on different pages, but this is just confusing for newbies. A distinguishable design prevents confusions. Regards, Church of emacs ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l Hmmm... Not being able to distinguish the difference between a bug tracker and a wiki based on the skins being similar is a point of view I have a hard time understanding. Having a consistent style across our tool-chain would by most people's thinking be an improvement in the way that each tool is more connected feeling... Besides, we would be styling it with Vector not Monobook. Monobook is so last decade! - Trevor ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Ryan Chan ryanchan...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongm...@gmail.com wrote: I would prefer something that would tightly integrate with CodeReview, but that probably means writing custom software, which is a lot of work. I think atlassian is happy to provide Jira as well as other tools for WMF, just like they do for other opensource projects. I would recommend reading the EULA as part of the evaluation process: http://www.atlassian.com/about/licensing/license.jsp In particular, see section 10, which may affect the ability to get an honest opinion about the capabilities of the software from people with experience. Rob ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:58 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I understand they run OpenSolaris, which is free software. Well, either you're right or River is: 081128 13:01:12 @yksinaisyyteni we don't use opensolaris, we use solaris 10 ... 081128 13:02:08 Simetrical Wikimedia is using Solaris 10 to host Wikipedia/Commons/etc. stuff? 081128 13:02:15 @yksinaisyyteni the image server (from #wikimedia-tech) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
2010/1/7 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:58 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I understand they run OpenSolaris, which is free software. Well, either you're right or River is: River probably is then :-) However, I understood the ZFS bug manifested itself on OpenSolaris on the image server ... - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla Vs other trackers.
2010/1/7 Trevor Parscal tpars...@wikimedia.org: Hmmm... Not being able to distinguish the difference between a bug tracker and a wiki based on the skins being similar is a point of view I have a hard time understanding. Having read quite a few bug reports written in wikitext (which mostly doesn't work in Bugzilla, except for [[links]]), I would encourage a clearer distinction between the wikis and the bug tracker. I don't want to give people the impression that what they're reporting bugs on is really a quirky wiki variant: the bug tracker not only uses different syntax, but also has different policies, procedures and protocols. I like the Launchpad design, its use of less jargon-like language and how it lists status changes amid the comments and provides a full activity log on a separate page. Having a consistent style across our tool-chain would by most people's thinking be an improvement in the way that each tool is more connected feeling... That's a nice idea in principle, but as outlined above I'd like to keep the similarities limited. Our bug tracker should actively communicate it's Wikimedia's (name and logo in prominent places) but shouldn't feel /too/ familiar to people that are used to wikis. Besides, we would be styling it with Vector not Monobook. Monobook is so last decade! I do agree that if we restyle anything, we should at least improve its looks :) Roan Kattouw (Catrope) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] 100% open source stack (was Re: Bugzilla Vs other trackers.)
Robert Rohde wrote: The historical position has been that absolutely nothing goes into the WMF software pool unless it is open source. As I recall, the only recognized exception was the closed source firmware running the routers at the server farm. Also Solaris. Lucene is free software, but was out for a while as Java wasn't free software then. I believe we used a rewritten version in C# for a while, in fact. A Java version of Lucene started being used again when Java was in the process of being freed up, I think we were using it before there was an entirely free software Java. Well yeah, Brion took a strong stance against proprietary software and ported MediaWiki's interface to Lucene to C# to avoid having to use Java. But Lucene.NET was not very good and Robert Stojnic was keen to switch back to Java when he started working on it. Luckily by that time Sun had announced that they were making Java open source (although the source code wasn't actually published for a bit longer), so Brion could put aside his objections. However, when we needed to scale up our file storage platform, and make backups more feasible, ZFS's snapshot feature became too attractive to resist. You can only favour idealism over pragmatism up to a point, beyond which it becomes irresponsible, and even Brion was won over. So Solaris was installed on the ms* servers. I think the current policy is use open source software unless you have a really good reason. Jimmy Wales and Erik Moeller are also advocates of open source software. -- Tim Starling ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] 100% open source stack (was Re: Bugzilla Vs other trackers.)
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: However, when we needed to scale up our file storage platform, and make backups more feasible, ZFS's snapshot feature became too attractive to resist. What was wrong with LVM snapshots? Performance? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
