On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 6:55 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/18 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
It'd actually be better if Google properly indexed text pages whose
name ends in .jpg or whatever ... but
* Tei oscar.vi...@gmail.com [Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:42:45 +0200]:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Chengbin
Zhengchengbinzh...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
No, I know what parsing means. Even if it takes 2 days to parse
them,
wouldn't it be faster than to actually create a static HTML dump the
Hi,
the another big question is that why don't include JQuery to load
automatically with _every_ pages? Now at least two wikis load JQuery
v1.3.2 from common.js (see
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.js,
http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.js), the
UsabilityInitiative
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Dmitriy Sintsov ques...@rambler.ru wrote:
* Tei oscar.vi...@gmail.com [Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:42:45 +0200]:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Chengbin
Zhengchengbinzh...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
No, I know what parsing means. Even if it takes 2 days to parse
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Tim Starlingtstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Brandon Sterne's messages are not in that archive.
That's confusing. I'm not sure why. You're correct about what point
I'm referring to.
I was subscribed, but I was trolled there until I gave up and
unsubscribed,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Aryeh
Gregorsimetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, in this case we're not even talking about something that would
go into HTML 5, necessarily, it's being developed by only Mozilla
right now. If more important Wikimedia people than I state agreement
with
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Chengbin Zhengchengbinzh...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Yes, the TombRaider version is exactly the version I want for static
HTML.
Just curious, is
pages-articles.xml.bz2http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20090713/enwiki-20090713-pages-articles.xml.bz2
like
a
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Tei oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Chengbin Zhengchengbinzh...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Yes, the TombRaider version is exactly the version I want for static
HTML.
Just curious, is
pages-articles.xml.bz2
The toolserver rules forbid that:
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Rules (#8)
However there is gWatch which works without authentication:
http://toolserver.org/~luxo/gwatch/login.php
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:59 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/22 Sage Ross
your Wikimedia password into the watchlistr.com site. I have no
specific reason to think it's a scam, but if I was trying to phish
passwords I would do something like this.
Would something on the toolserver be safe enough in these terms?
It would seem more trustworthy, but if i recall
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:18 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Mmm. So solving this properly would require solving many of the
various consolidated/multiple watchlist bugs in MediaWiki itself,
then.
Hm? No. Solving *this* involves having a sysadmin determine the source
of IP of the
Hoi,
Would OpenID make a difference ? It seems to me that when you authenticate
to both WMF projects and to this watchlistr, you would not expose passwords
in the wrong place. It seems to be also a solution of allowing Commons to
authenticate in this way.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/7/22 Sage Ross
I have added an application option ktf-to-fail that when specified accumulates
tests with known-to-fail status as if they failed. When this option is missing,
failure statistics do not include known-to-fail results and there is a summary
at the end of parserTests that specifies how many
I have a Greasemonkey script that does this, IMO, very nicely. I'm not 100%
sure how GM script distribution works, but can't a server put files in a
particular directory to have them be automatically suggested for
installation by Greasemonkey?
I know it's not a perfect or even nice solution,
I assume ktf is short for Known To Fail? You've got a bit of RAS syndrome
going on there... :-D
--HM
dan nessett dness...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:842292.50373...@web32504.mail.mud.yahoo.com...
I have added an application option ktf-to-fail that when specified
accumulates tests
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Teioscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote:
At a point, Brion compressed it to 242 MB.
http://www.mail-archive.com/wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg00358.html
It looks like it was Platonides, not Brion, and as far as I can tell,
Gregory Maxwell said his compression
Right. The option is a bit cryptic. I first thought of knowntofail-to-failures,
but that was way too long.
--- On Wed, 7/22/09, Happy-melon happy-me...@live.com wrote:
From: Happy-melon happy-me...@live.com
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Known to fail interactions with compare and record
To:
Why not just call it --with-known-to-fail? Easy.
-Chad
On Jul 22, 2009 7:11 PM, dan nessett dness...@yahoo.com wrote:
Right. The option is a bit cryptic. I first thought of
knowntofail-to-failures, but that was way too long.
--- On Wed, 7/22/09, Happy-melon happy-me...@live.com wrote:
From:
If anyone can come up with a better option name, I would be happy to replace
ktf-to-fail. I generally don't like cryptic abbreviations. However,
with-known-to-fail doesn't really get at the underlying meaning of the
option. It specifies that known-to-fail test results are accumulated as
Which is exactly what my param means. Its expected
that failures will be reported, and --with-known-to-fail
would indicate that known failures will be added.
--knowntofail-to-fail and --ktf-to-fail certainly aren't any
clearer.
-Chad
On Jul 22, 2009 7:22 PM, dan nessett dness...@yahoo.com
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.comsimetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Teioscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote:
At a point, Brion compressed it to 242 MB.
Well, it isn't all that clear to me, but I really don't care. I'll change it to
whatever people want. Call me anything you like, but don't call me late for
dinner.
Can someone tell me how the --fuzz option is supposed to behave? I am
cross-testing the new parserTests parameter in conjunction
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Ryan Lanerlan...@gmail.com wrote:
Check out how the Flickr API works. Users can give web and desktop
apps privileges (read/write/delete).
It isn't really that bizarre of a concept.
Read/write/delete access to what? The only cases where read access
would be
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Aryeh
Gregorsimetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Happy-melonhappy-me...@live.com wrote:
I have a Greasemonkey script that does this, IMO, very nicely. I'm not 100%
sure how GM script distribution works, but can't a server put
2009/7/23 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Ryan Lanerlan...@gmail.com wrote:
Check out how the Flickr API works. Users can give web and desktop
apps privileges (read/write/delete).
It isn't really that bizarre of a concept.
Read/write/delete
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Brianna
Laugherbrianna.laug...@gmail.com wrote:
Eh? I do. Else why bother even having a write API? Why bother even
having the login aspect to the API?
The API allows you to edit if you know the password of the account
you're using. I can't see the value in
2009/7/23 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Brianna
Laugherbrianna.laug...@gmail.com wrote:
Eh? I do. Else why bother even having a write API? Why bother even
having the login aspect to the API?
The API allows you to edit if you know the password
Brianna Laugher wrote:
2009/7/23 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Brianna
Laugherbrianna.laug...@gmail.com wrote:
Eh? I do. Else why bother even having a write API? Why bother even
having the login aspect to the API?
The API allows you to edit if
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Brianna
Laugherbrianna.laug...@gmail.com wrote:
The value is that you don't train your users that it's OK to give
their password away to random 3rd parties.
No, instead you train them to give away the ability to edit using
their account to random third parties,
dan nessett wrote:
Well, it isn't all that clear to me, but I really don't care. I'll
change it to whatever people want. Call me anything you like, but
don't call me late for dinner.
Can someone tell me how the --fuzz option is supposed to behave? I
am cross-testing the new parserTests
30 matches
Mail list logo
