Hi,
One developer recently complained about some freenode policies,
specifically that wiki projects (wikipedia etc has some kind of
exception) are no longer allowed to be hosted on freenode network,
which is supposed to host only opensource projects. It's fact that as
the wikimedia project is
Good morning,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
One developer recently complained about some freenode policies,
specifically that wiki projects (wikipedia etc has some kind of
exception) are no longer allowed to be hosted on freenode network,
which is
Hi, thanks for your response!
First of all, I am not the guy who complained regarding the fact wikis
are not accepted, I am just proposing another idea, but here are
answers:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Sébastien Santoro
dereck...@espace-win.org wrote:
Good morning,
On Thu, Jun 21,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 09:35:56AM +0200, Petr Bena wrote:
One developer recently complained about some freenode policies,
specifically that wiki projects (wikipedia etc has some kind of
exception) are no longer allowed to be hosted on freenode network,
which is supposed to host only
But I am not talking about creating a new network, but providing some
of our resources to freenode. They would likely operate and manage it
without assistance from wmf ops.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Faidon Liambotis fai...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 09:35:56AM +0200,
On other hand I disagree that maintaining an irc network is so
complicated, given that we have so many volunteers who would
eventually help with that. But staying on freenode would make it
easier for us, that's true.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Faidon Liambotis fai...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
But I am not talking about creating a new network, but providing some
of our resources to freenode. They would likely operate and manage it
without assistance from wmf ops.
(Last I saw) Freenode wants full root access on the
How many users does wikimedia's channels represent ?
It becomes more complicated to manage an IRC Network when it's necessary to
multiply servers but it's not
Le 21 juin 2012 à 14:24, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com
Petr Bena wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Sébastien Santoro
dereck...@espace-win.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
One developer recently complained about some freenode policies,
specifically that wiki projects (wikipedia etc has some
Sorry, typing error. Suite inline.
Le 21 juin 2012 à 14:41, Emeric Vallespi emeric.valle...@gmail.com a écrit :
How many users does wikimedia's channels represent ?
It becomes more complicated to manage an IRC Network when it's necessary to
multiply servers however it's not very complicated
It's fixed in:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/12363
and:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/12361
Just needs review.
- Ryan
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I wasn't talking about wikimedia channels but wiki projects (non
wikimedia) in relation with recent complaint from someone else
(mediawiki dev who wanted to open a channel for his wiki on freenode)
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:55 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Petr Bena wrote:
On Thu, Jun
Definitely it would be a bad idea to merge RC feed irc with some irc
for people. If there was any new network it would be probably
configured from scratch and unrelated to ratircd RC feed run on.
Anyway I don't think that would happen. This isn't even discussion
about that. We are discussing
hi-
i'm hopeful this is the appropriate venue for this topic - i recently
had occasion to visit #mediawiki on freenode, looking for help. i found
myself a bit frustrated by the amount of bot activity there and wondered
if there might be value in some consideration for this. it seems to
That's what I said this week, we should make #mediawiki-feed where all
bots would live and leave #mediawiki for humans
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:01 PM, btb b...@bitrate.net wrote:
hi-
i'm hopeful this is the appropriate venue for this topic - i recently had
occasion to visit #mediawiki on
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
That's what I said this week, we should make #mediawiki-feed where all
bots would live and leave #mediawiki for humans
The important thing to do is to make the bots channel +m, so only
the bots can talk. Otherwise,
The important thing to do is to make the bots channel +m, so only
the bots can talk. Otherwise, development discussion will follow to
the new channel and this is a bad thing.
+1. Splitting devs way from support means support questions go
unanswered by devs. As long as we aren't splitting
The important thing to do is to make the bots channel +m, so only the bots
can talk. Otherwise, development discussion will follow to the new channel
and this is a bad thing.
Agreed. Forcing the bots separate from the devs will keep the discussion a
lot easier to follow too, both in real time
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Derric Atzrott
datzr...@alizeepathology.com wrote:
I'm also in agreement that giving the bots their own channel is a great
idea. I don't get on #mediawiki that terribly often, but Bug #35427 that
Petr showed us convinced me that it needs done sooner than
Ok, I was bold and created #mediawiki-feed let's configure it as we
proposed. It will be +m and all bots will have voice. All devs who
want +f in that channel so that they can configure flags and rules for
bots, just ping me in #mediawiki
If there was some problem we can always put it back, I
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I was bold and created #mediawiki-feed let's configure it as we
proposed. It will be +m and all bots will have voice. All devs who
want +f in that channel so that they can configure flags and rules for
bots, just ping me
Please move the bots out.
On Jun 21, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Chad wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Derric Atzrott
datzr...@alizeepathology.com wrote:
I'm also in agreement that giving the bots their own channel is a great
idea. I don't get on #mediawiki that terribly often,
Well let's not shut anything off in #mediawiki just yet. This has only been
on the list for an hour so let's allow some other people the chance to weigh
in :)
Aye. It may be daylight hours in the States, but it isn't necessarily
everywhere; some of the people on this list may be sleeping or
btb wrote:
i'm hopeful this is the appropriate venue for this topic - i recently
had occasion to visit #mediawiki on freenode, looking for help. i found
myself a bit frustrated by the amount of bot activity there
Indeed. Made discussion very hard to follow and I end up doing private
message to
Le 21/06/12 17:13, Petr Bena a écrit :
That's what I said this week, we should make #mediawiki-feed where all
bots would live and leave #mediawiki for humans
Please note we also have #mediawiki-codereview which received
notifications from Special:CodeReview. It is already setup, so we could
No worries new channel is already.logged so they could grab the feed from
log. Anyway waiting is a good idea
On Jun 21, 2012 6:11 PM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
btb wrote:
i'm hopeful this is the appropriate venue for this topic - i recently
had occasion to visit #mediawiki on
Le 21/06/12 18:09, Derric Atzrott a écrit :
I personally would suggest waiting 24 hours on it.
And since we do not deploy on Friday, that is never going to happen
before at least monday June 25th :-]
--
Antoine hashar Musso
___
Wikitech-l
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Le 21/06/12 18:09, Derric Atzrott a écrit :
I personally would suggest waiting 24 hours on it.
And since we do not deploy on Friday, that is never going to happen
before at least monday June 25th :-]
Well we've had
If you're moving all bots, including wikibugs, then you can't use -codereview
because wikibugs isn't a code review bot. It's for bugs.
Krenair
On 21/06/12 17:14, Antoine Musso wrote:
Le 21/06/12 17:13, Petr Bena a écrit :
That's what I said this week, we should make #mediawiki-feed where
That's my point as well
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Krenair kren...@gmail.com wrote:
If you're moving all bots, including wikibugs, then you can't use
-codereview because wikibugs isn't a code review bot. It's for bugs.
Krenair
On 21/06/12 17:14, Antoine Musso wrote:
Le 21/06/12
+ -feed is shorter than -codereview, we could just rename channel
(move access list and settings)
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
That's my point as well
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Krenair kren...@gmail.com wrote:
If you're moving all bots, including
Or we could keep both
codereview as it is and new -feed for all lightweight feed bots we had
in #mediawiki
because if we move the bot from -codereview the new feed will have way
too many review reports
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
+ -feed is shorter than
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
Or we could keep both
codereview as it is and new -feed for all lightweight feed bots we had
in #mediawiki
because if we move the bot from -codereview the new feed will have way
too many review reports
Well, -codereview
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Krenair kren...@gmail.com wrote:
If you're moving all bots, including wikibugs, then you can't use
-codereview because wikibugs isn't a code review bot. It's for bugs.
Krenair
Will the world end if we do this? No.
--
John
If you're moving all bots, including wikibugs, then you can't use
-codereview because wikibugs isn't a code review bot. It's for bugs.
Will the world end if we do this? No.
Although the world won't end, I agree with Krenair that -codereview is for
code reviews, not bugs. Depending on the
Obviously some developers do feel that it's worth discussing. Not sure that we
need to stop them (Lord knows we discuss other topics to great lengths).
However I invite you to sit this one out if you disagree. Just don't cut others
off in the process.
As a good steward of the wiki community I
Is anyone from Freenode on this list or able to respond? I feel like they'd be
open to the conversation and hearing general thoughts from a designated group
even before we know what carrot we'll offer.
If any requests are a non-starter then it may not matter if we can offer
resources or not.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Mr. Gregory Varnum
gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote:
Is anyone from Freenode on this list or able to respond? I feel like they'd
be open to the conversation and hearing general thoughts from a designated
group even before we know what carrot we'll offer.
If
Good point. There's a page on meta already / might be helpful for folks to post
there.
-Greg
Sent from my iPhone. Apologies for any typos. A more detailed response may be
sent later.
On Jun 21, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:07
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
That's what I said this week, we should make #mediawiki-feed where all
bots would live and leave #mediawiki for humans
If we relegate the bots to a separate channel, pretty soon they'll
figure out no one is paying attention to
I would prefer to see wikibugs stay in #mw to be honest, There is
sometimes support stuff in there, as well as other important stuff.
I'm sure people don't want to be flicking IRC channels every X, and
wikibugs wasn't that high of traffic either...
___
Hey all wikitech peeps,
In helping organize the upcoming Wikimania DC Hackathon, I wanted
to ask if there are particular categories of work that people with
fairly limited experience could do that would have a meaningful impact.
For example:
* Updating extensions to work with the latest version
wikibugs is one of most active bots there, if we are supposed to keep
it, we should filter only bugs related to mediawiki at least
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:42 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
I would prefer to see wikibugs stay in #mw to be honest, There is
sometimes support stuff in
Excerpts from Sumana Harihareswara's message of Mon Jun 18 15:40:57 -0400 2012:
On 06/18/2012 03:34 PM, Derric Atzrott wrote:
In order to come, you have to register for the Wikimania conference:
I'm already registered for the conference, so this doesn't personally affect
me, but why
Wikibugs is more active than gerrit? I've been sitting in the irc
channel less than 30min (not the best user case) but that experience
tends to suggest otherwise.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Mr. Gregory Varnum
gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote:
Is anyone from Freenode on this list or able to respond? I feel like they'd
be open to the conversation and hearing general thoughts from a designated
group even before we know what carrot we'll offer.
If
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Asheesh Laroia li...@asheesh.org wrote:
Hey all wikitech peeps,
In helping organize the upcoming Wikimania DC Hackathon, I wanted
to ask if there are particular categories of work that people with
fairly limited experience could do that would have a
Excerpts from Alolita Sharma's message of Mon Jun 18 14:42:08 -0400 2012:
Excellent news Sumana!
Welcome Asheesh and OpenHatch team :-)
Thanks for the warm welcome!
-- Asheesh.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
I didn't say so, but still it's second most active bot
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:56 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikibugs is more active than gerrit? I've been sitting in the irc
channel less than 30min (not the best user case) but that experience
tends to suggest otherwise.
On the QA front, this came up in a WMF discussion recently, and I proposed
it as a Weekend Testing Americas session, but it would work equally well at
Wikimania, and it fits our goal of bringing in more community testing
nicely:
Wikipedia has a large number of open bug reports, like around
Le 21/06/12 22:49, Petr Bena a écrit :
wikibugs is one of most active bots there, if we are supposed to keep
it, we should filter only bugs related to mediawiki at least
We got a Gerrit change for that somewhere. Still pending review /
deployment though.
Code is in subversion still:
On 06/19/2012 11:23 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 20:40 schrieb Sumana Harihareswara suma...@wikimedia.org:
OpenHatch is a non-profit dedicated to matching prospective free
software contributors with communities, tools, and education. Wikimedia
Foundation is pleased to announce
I'm especially interested in tasks where there's a lot of work to do --
that way, people can be given lots of hands-on things to do that can
provide practice to help people be more comfortable with tools like git
and gerrit, or more comfortable with the MediaWiki hooks, or where the
task
Okay - just had a long chat with some staffers in #Freenode. Here's what I've
come away with..
Essentially folks are right that this policy is very much in flux. Which leads
me to believe that some nudging from Wikimedia would be well timed.
They have agreed to reconsider WikiQueer's app -
Faidon wrote:
Setting up and properly maintaining an IRC network is extremely
complicated. We really *really* shouldn't do that, esp. since there is
no reason for us to do so, when there are other open networks around.
freenode servers are hosted, not maintained. Which means, they want the
On 21/06/12 22:42, K. Peachey wrote:
I would prefer to see wikibugs stay in #mw to be honest, There is
sometimes support stuff in there, as well as other important stuff.
I'm sure people don't want to be flicking IRC channels every X, and
wikibugs wasn't that high of traffic either...
Me too.
On 20/06/12 17:28, Tim Weyer (SVG) wrote:
'deleterevision' in its function of deleting revisions of a page or
removing IP/username/comment is what I want it to be only. And if you
tell it masking or suppressing is not a big difference. Okay, you only
suppress the content of the log entry, so
Platonides wrote:
It's yet another channel to join, keep an eye on, add to autojoin. We
start with a negative weight.
#mediawiki bots give useful, human-generated content.
Compare with tsnag at #wikimedia-toolserver, that's a nagios bot that
spits out warnings quite frequently on its own.
I just gave Alex Monk (krenair) Subversion commit access to extensions,
because he wanted to work on a couple of things that are still in SVN.
His past contributions:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/owner:krenair%2540gmail.com+project:mediawiki/core,n,z
Also, I am mostly succeeding in my goal
Actually when I talked to freenode staff, there were quite interested
in this. They don't have so many servers and wikimedia is well known
project with established technical infrastructure. Even if they needed
root, they could use puppet to set up the system to their needs and
there are many folks
This weekend, TechWeek Chicago starts: http://techweek.com/
The Foundation's Peter Gehres is copresenting the analytics presentation
How Wikipedia Doubled its Online Fundraising this Saturday. If you're
at TechWeek, he and other Wikimedians want to meet with you and talk shop!
I have never seen any such a channel for user support and developers
which is getting flooded like this one. It's nearly unusable for
people who are seeking help with mediawiki. If you really want to keep
the bots in channel, we should create #mediawiki-help for people who
are seeking that and
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Asheesh Laroia li...@asheesh.org wrote:
Excerpts from Sumana Harihareswara's message of Mon Jun 18 15:40:57 -0400
2012:
On 06/18/2012 03:34 PM, Derric Atzrott wrote:
In order to come, you have to register for the Wikimania conference:
I'm already
63 matches
Mail list logo
