https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
Aaron Schulz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
--- Comment #19 from Rob Lanphier 2010-10-26 00:51:07 UTC
---
Priyanka checked in code to address this in r75331 and r75332. I believe there
might be a loose end or two to tie up (e.g. the FIXME on r75332), but this is
largely done.
--
Conf
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
--- Comment #18 from Rob Lanphier 2010-10-06 20:22:28 UTC
---
I just posted to the mediawiki-api list about this:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-api/2010-October/001963.html
Skipping the intro:
> In talking to Sam this mornin
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
--- Comment #17 from Priyanka Dhanda 2010-10-05
21:49:45 UTC ---
Thanks Platonides! I was going to check whether that is conventionally a better
way of doing it. You answered my question :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.or
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
--- Comment #16 from Platonides 2010-10-05 20:50:28 UTC
---
Created attachment 7718
--> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=7718
Proposal 2
That hooks could only be used for disabling the content.
I would use something like th
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
--- Comment #15 from Priyanka Dhanda 2010-10-05
18:10:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 7715
--> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=7715
Changes to DifferenceInterface::renderNewRevision()
What I have in mind would look something
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
--- Comment #14 from Priyanka Dhanda 2010-10-05
17:38:06 UTC ---
Platonides, I meant a parser cache hit for that revision assuming parser
caching is enabled.
For simplicity sake though, it probably makes sense to consistently not return
conten
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
--- Comment #13 from Rob Lanphier 2010-10-05 16:38:12 UTC
---
Hi Priyanka, I think checking for a cache hit seems like a fine idea, assuming
it doesn't make the logic too convoluted.
Hi Platonides, here's what's going on. Thanks to the fix i
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
--- Comment #12 from Platonides 2010-10-05 16:16:38 UTC
---
I am not sure you said what you intended to say. If they don't have any parser
caching (default is to use db), everything will be "slow".
I would like to see DifferenceInterface::rend
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
Priyanka Dhanda changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #11 from Priyan
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
--- Comment #10 from Platonides 2010-09-28 15:04:25 UTC
---
Note that just changing the diffonly=0 from the url of the Review link to
diffonly=1 will give you a content-less diff.
Adding a "show content" button to diffonly revisions should be
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
Rob Lanphier changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|ro...@wikimedia.org |pdha...@wikimedia.org
--- Comment #9 fr
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
Rob Lanphier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||24124
--- Comment #8 from Rob Lanphier
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
--- Comment #7 from Platonides 2010-09-27 15:34:01 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> This action actually has the same effect as requesting a diff between the
> latest accepted revision, and the latest revision
FlaggedRevs::getPageCache() al
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
--- Comment #6 from Bawolff 2010-09-27 11:42:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> Re: steps taken. The FlaggedRevs extension adds extra bits to the history,
> and
> some extra UI to diff pages. One typical review flow involves:
> 1. Go
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
Roan Kattouw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roan.katt...@gmail.com,
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
--- Comment #4 from Rob Lanphier 2010-09-27 05:50:17 UTC
---
Re: my modulo idea; that was borne of my ignorance+forgetfulness of how our
caching works. I'm not sure exactly how things are configured, but since tghe
parser cache uses memcached
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
--- Comment #3 from Platonides 2010-09-25 17:49:05 UTC
---
It would have an expire time, it's not for garbage collecting need but to avoid
having copies of all parsed revisions, which would force memcached to expire
prematurely other items.
Ma
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
--- Comment #2 from Rob Lanphier 2010-09-25 04:51:33 UTC
---
For option 1, we'd want to store probably more recent history than just the
very latest. We wouldn't need to store everything, but the tough part is that
I don't think we've got a n
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
Rob Lanphier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||25293
--
Configure bugmail: https://bu
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25289
Platonides changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||platoni...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from
21 matches
Mail list logo
