On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 8:01 PM, zh...@york.ac.uk wrote:
Hi, all,
I try to use MWDumper to import data, however, the importer only has two
choise for Mysql and PostGreSQL. What I am supposed to do if I want import
Wikipedia data into Oracle database?
Use maintenance/importDump.php
@peter: here a recent thread into MediaWiki-API ml about API and sections:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-api/2010-May/subject.html
No mention of labelled sections used by #lst exstesion ... :-( but
remember the name of ThomasV as a reference.
Alex
Good afternoon,
This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
releases (people seriously get confused that 1.10 comes after
1.6). The following suggestions
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
releases (people seriously get confused
Peter17 wrote:
I didn't set $wgUploadPath. Just $wgUseInstantCommons = true; The
images URLs are actually transformed to remote URLs:
I work on my own local wiki, which address is
http://localhost/mediawiki/ and transcluding
{{mediawikiwiki::User:Peter17}} which contains
This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
releases (people seriously get confused that 1.10 comes after
1.6).
Hi Chad, thanks for that initiative. I
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 21:00, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
Good afternoon,
This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
releases (people
This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
releases (people seriously get confused that 1.10 comes after
1.6). The following suggestions have been put
On 26 May 2010 21:21, Lane, Ryan ryan.l...@ocean.navo.navy.mil wrote:
This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
releases (people seriously get confused
Conrad Irwin wrote:
Wouldn't removing 1.6 from the main page solve the problem for most
newcomers? Only those who go down to the PHP 4 section of the
downloads need ever know it exists and thus get the impression that it
is an older version. Once they're no-longer newcomers, we can hope
that
On 05/26/2010 12:12 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted
I'm fine with doing 1.x releases forever. It's worked for a lot of
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Conrad Irwin conrad.ir...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 May 2010 21:21, Lane, Ryan ryan.l...@ocean.navo.navy.mil wrote:
This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
it here. I don't think
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
To be honest I think we should remove it from everything. I
know it requires practically zero work to maintain, but the
longer it sits around the more people will be encouraged to
stick with PHP4 and not move on. PHP in
Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:aanlktimeplhm2o6_2-dkr5epkpt-pg2hr5qtcmsrf...@mail.gmail.com...
Good afternoon,
This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
it here. I don't think anyone
On 5/26/2010 3:00 PM, Chad wrote:
Good afternoon,
This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
releases (people seriously get confused that 1.10 comes
Hi Dan,
There is a list of browsers compatible with Selenium (See
http://seleniumhq.org/about/platforms.html#browsers ). The page states that
Selenium works with Firefox 2+ when a Linux OS is used (I think Ubuntu would
fall under this category ).
I am using Firefox 3.5.9 on Ubuntu 9.10 . I have
Hi Dan and Markus
I have added some troubleshooting tips, based on notes I took during the
Friday May 14 meeting, to the Selenium Framework page:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/SeleniumFramework#Working_example I think it
has the tip about port . My intent was to add information for problem
In the extensions I've written, I've usually used the x.x.x naming
convention, similar to the MediaWiki core's. But in light of the comments
made in this conversation, I considered using integers. E.g. advance from
version 9 to version 10 rather than from 1.1.9 to 1.1.10, and thus avoid
confusion
On 27/05/10 05:00, Chad wrote:
Good afternoon,
This morning I bumped the revision number to 2.0[0]. Some
people on IRC didn't like this, so I reverted it and I'm bringing
it here. I don't think anyone really wants to keep doing 1.x
releases (people seriously get confused that 1.10 comes
19 matches
Mail list logo
