On Sat, 2013-03-02 at 16:47 -0300, Helder . wrote:
Can we get the owner instead of the last reviewer in the text
below, when a change is merged?
Please file a request under the Wikimedia product in
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org so this does not get lost.
andre
--
Andre Klapper | Wikimedia
Hi list,
so I need to set up a local instance of the dewiki- and enwiki-DB with all
revisions.. :-D
I know it's rather a mammoth project so I was wondering if somebody could
give me some pointers?
First of all, I would need to know what kind of hardware I should get. Is
it possible/smart to
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Krinkle krinklem...@gmail.com wrote:
As of today, we automatically run our QUnit test suite[4] in MediaWiki
core from Jenkins.
Great news!
I won't go in detail about what PhantomJS is, but in short:
It is a headless WebKit browser. Meaning, it doesn't
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Krinkle krinklem...@gmail.com wrote:
However, unlike php-checkstyle, our QUnit tests
are actually passing
From console[1]:
02:50:21 Testing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
GNU LibreJS blocks several Javascript sources around Wikipedia. I was
sent to this list by Kirk Billund. My issue as well as Kirk's replies
follows. I hope you are okay to read it in this form.
03/05/2013 11:16 - Alexander Berntsen wrote:
GNU
If you mean that we have to insert that huge chunk of comments from
[1] into every page, the answer is no because we'll have to include
several licenses here, making it ridiculously long. All JS run on
Wikimedia sites is free, and if some software believes otherwise, that
software needs to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/03/13 13:18, Max Semenik wrote:
If you mean that we have to insert that huge chunk of comments from
[1] into every page, the answer is no because we'll have to
include several licenses here, making it ridiculously long.
Please see the
Done.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45738
Helder
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Sat, 2013-03-02 at 16:47 -0300, Helder . wrote:
Can we get the owner instead of the last reviewer in the text
below, when a change is merged?
On 5 March 2013 11:56, Alexander Berntsen alexan...@plaimi.net wrote:
03/05/2013 11:16 - Alexander Berntsen wrote:
GNU LibreJs[0] reports that several of the Javascript sources
embedded by different parts of Wikipedia are proprietary[1].
Is this a conscious anti-social choice[2], or have you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/03/13 14:38, David Gerard wrote:
Yeah, calling people antisocial when you ask them for something is
definitely the approach to take. Let us know how it works out for
GNU LibreJS.
I did not call anyone antisocial. Furthermore I am not
I may be saying rubbish, but...
I think we should have a checkbox in Preferences where we can switch off
global JS and CSS for the wiki where this checkbox is set/unset. Let's
imagine I have a script which fits well for every project but Wikidata.
Then I go to the preferences and just disable the
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Alexander Berntsen alexan...@plaimi.net wrote:
On 05/03/13 11:38, Wikipedia information team wrote:
All of the MediaWiki[1] code base that Wikipedia is licensed
under the GPL[2], including the JavaScript. Also included in
that is the freely-licensed (MIT)
On 03/05/2013 02:54 AM, Andreas Nüßlein wrote:
Hi list,
so I need to set up a local instance of the dewiki- and enwiki-DB with all
revisions.. :-D
Just in case:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mirroring_Wikimedia_project_XML_dumps
Also, you might want to ask / discuss at
Hi,
You might also try the following mailing list:
* XML Data Dumps mailing
listhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/xmldatadumps-l
*
Here is some info on importing XML dumps ( not sure what tools work well
but probably the mailing list can help with that)
Hi everybody,
Please join us on the next Wikimedia Bugday:
Thursday, March 07th, 15:00-21:00 UTC [1]
in #wikimedia-dev on Freenode IRC [2]
We are going to take a look at a subset [3] of MediaWiki bug reports
filed under General/Unknown, trying to reproduce some plus provide
feedback.
From console[1]:
02:50:21 Testing
http://localhost:9412/mediawiki-core-28a705a9f648da310ff2a4fca9d013bf147f3d1f/index.php?title=Special:JavaScriptTest/qunitExceptionthrown
by
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 12:56:23PM +0100, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
GNU LibreJS blocks several Javascript sources around Wikipedia. I was
sent to this list by Kirk Billund. My issue as well as Kirk's replies
follows. I hope you are okay to read it in this form.
I don't see the purpose of adding a licence string back on to JavaScript
post-minification. Any recipient wanting to create a derivative work or
redistribute those files is going to go back to the much more readable
source files.
It would be good form to add licence information to all the JS
Le 05/03/13 03:56, Alexander Berntsen a écrit :
Is it not possible to insert the licence as part of your build
process? What I do with compiled or minified Javascript is to
build everything, and then insert the licence to all files using
BASH.
PLEASE NO. Let's not start a drama.
The JS are
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Luke Welling WMF lwell...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I don't see the purpose of adding a licence string back on to JavaScript
post-minification. Any recipient wanting to create a derivative work or
redistribute those files is going to go back to the much more readable
On Mar 3, 2013, at 7:04 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Jeremy Baron jer...@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com wrote:
Is anybody else seeing this when running 'git submodule update' in a
checkout of the
Not rubbish - that would be quite useful. The only problem is it would
be a somewhat limited use case. Many users never go near their css/js,
so it would just be another checkbox for them to ignore, and those who
do use global css/js would just as likely have wider scope issues than
that -
On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Dan Andreescu dandree...@wikimedia.org wrote:
From console[1]:
02:50:21 Testing
I would just like to note that while it may be silly or useless to
insert licenses into minified JavaScript, it is nonetheless *legally
required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it. And it is not
a question of whether we want to support some labeling program that reads
JavaScript
On 03/05/2013 12:22 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
it is nonetheless *legally
required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it
I think that determination needs to be made by Counsel, not on a guess.
I've quite some knowledge of copyright myself, and I know enough that
the matter is
You can of course always counter-over-ride your global JS/CSS locally - the
composite rule would presumably be changed to:
1. file,
2. site
3. skin,
*. global-user
4. local-user
… - so you could fix local incompatibilities.
J.
On 5 March 2013 09:14, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
Not rubbish - that would be quite useful. The only problem is it would
be a somewhat limited use case. Many users never go near their css/js,
so it would just be another checkbox for them to ignore, and those who
do use global css/js would just as likely have wider scope issues than
that -
On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 17:03:58 +0100, Tim Landscheidt t...@tim-landscheidt.de
wrote:
Bartosz Dziewoński matma@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote a very simple one some time ago, in Ruby.
https://github.com/MatmaRex/mediawikireleasenotes-driver
It doesn't really work. There are enough changes
Yes. There seems little value in unqualified people debating if it is
legally required.
The mainstream FOSS licences all predate minification and seem to have been
written with compiled languages in mind, not interpreted languages. Most
have language that requires the licence in the source
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
I think that determination needs to be made by Counsel, not on a guess.
I've quite some knowledge of copyright myself, and I know enough that the
matter is subtle enough that this declaration is, at best, an
All these issues with the git-side driver is the reason I think we should
have a master-branch-monitoring bot that will update RELEASE-NOTES based on
commit messages. Easy to track changes, easy to fix problems. Might be a
bit more work than a driver though.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:30 PM,
I was wondering what the latest on this was (I can't seem to find any
recent updates in my mailing list). The MobileFrontend project was
reassured to see a github user commenting on our commits in github.
It's made me more excited about a universe where pull requests made in
github show up in
The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified
js winds up a part. For every file or other object that makes up the
page to all contain the licensing information would be pretty unusual.
It's like taking a file out of a page and then complaining that it has
no
Le 04/03/13 11:03, Tyler Romeo a écrit :
Do you mind sharing the package/source code link?
https://github.com/scrutinizer-ci/php-analyzer
Go ahead and play with it on a labs instance. If you could manage to
get an output generated for mediawiki/core that will give us an idea
about the
Is there a Counsel we can refer this to?
On Mar 5, 2013 11:47 AM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified js
winds up a part. For every file or other object that makes up the page to
all contain the licensing information
On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:22 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
I would just like to note that while it may be silly or useless to
insert licenses into minified JavaScript, it is nonetheless *legally
required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it. And it is not
a question of
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Ori Livneh o...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Today I sprinted to pick up QUnit testing in Jenkins and get it
stabilised and deployed.
This is fantastic. Thanks, Timo.
Indeed - this is a great milestone. Thanks for all your work getting
this out the door, Timo! :-)
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Caroline E Willis
cewillism...@gmail.comwrote:
Is there a Counsel we can refer this to?
Yes. :) This was already on my radar, and I am following this discussion
(which has been useful; specifically, I did not know about the bug already
filed on the issue).
For
On 3/5/13 5:53 AM, Helder . wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Alexander Berntsen alexan...@plaimi.net wrote:
On 05/03/13 11:38, Wikipedia information team wrote:
All of the MediaWiki[1] code base that Wikipedia is licensed
under the GPL[2], including the JavaScript. Also included in
that
- Original Message -
From: Mark Holmquist mtrac...@member.fsf.org
The minification process, however, does *not* cause a problem. We can
simply add the comments to the file(s) after the minification. It does
mean we'll need to include, potentially, multiple license headers in
one HTTP
On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
I was wondering what the latest on this was (I can't seem to find any
recent updates in my mailing list). The MobileFrontend project was
reassured to see a github user commenting on our commits in github.
It's made me more
On 03/05/2013 09:47 AM, Isarra Yos wrote:
The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified
js winds up a part. For every file or other object that makes up the
page to all contain the licensing information would be pretty unusual.
It's like taking a file out of a page
There's some upstream developers working on a github plugin. I was going to
mention it once there was something worth showing (which there isn't yet).
-Chad
On Mar 5, 2013 9:39 AM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
I was wondering what the latest on this was (I can't seem to find any
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
I am neither an engineer, nor a WMF staffer, but I want to throw a flag
here anyway.
Yes, it will cause an issue. If that extra data is going in every reply,
multiply its size by our replies per day count, won't you? I
On 5 March 2013 11:55, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 03/05/2013 09:47 AM, Isarra Yos wrote:
The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified
js winds up a part. For every file or other object that makes up the
page to all contain the licensing
- Original Message -
From: Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com
Yes, it will cause an issue. If that extra data is going in every
reply,
multiply its size by our replies per day count, won't you? I don't
know
what that number is, but I'm quite certain it's substantial.
*Every
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Certainly. But I see no reason to think it's legally required. And
while I, too, only play one on the Internet, I've been doing it since 1983.
If you read the licenses, it's pretty obvious. Also, popular libraries
(such as
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
fwiw this is not a discussion about Gerrit features but about git commit
and code contribution good practices in general. There is plenty of
literature out there.
I also prefer it in the header. The bug report is the best
But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW.
That would depend on the type of license the wmf got.
But hopefully it wouldn't come to that, as quite frankly that would be
insane.
-bawolff
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
- Original Message -
From: Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com
But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW.
Minification is a WMF cluster issue, not a MW software issue, is it not?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2
https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources
This JS which was mentioned in the forwarded email that started this
discussion is available via a wiki page so is probably under a CC-BY-SA-3.0
as it is
On 2013-03-05 4:28 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com
But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW.
Minification is a WMF cluster issue, not a MW software issue, is it not?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
On 03/05/2013 12:29 PM, Luke Welling WMF wrote:
We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2
https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources
I am referring to Isarra's comment:
The licensing information is on the page itself, of which the minified
js
On 03/05/2013 12:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
And in the unlikely event that's not good enough, the Foundation may well
be able to get a codicil license on the relevant libraries, acknowledging
that it needn't include the license text in on-the-wire minified copies.
If it does turn out we
On 03/05/2013 12:27 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com
But WMF getting a license doesn't help everybody else who uses MW.
Minification is a WMF cluster issue, not a MW software issue, is it not?
No, ResourceLoader and the
I would just like to note that while it may be silly or useless
to
insert licenses into minified JavaScript, it is nonetheless *legally
required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it.
My 2 points - during my own research about free licenses, I've decided
that for JS, a good
A short while ago I wrote a set of three PHP unit tests for Math that use test
doubles to stub out external dependencies (in this case, the database-backed
cache and the texvc executable). My intent was to demonstrate the technique to
another developer, so I commented the code extensively. It
Hey all,
Just wanted to share this piece of new documentation with everyone:
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Query_profiling_for_features_developers
This came out of a discussion about queries we need to run for the next
iteration of Extension:GettingStarted by Ori, Matt Flaschen, and S
On 3/5/13 1:03 PM, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote:
I would just like to note that while it may be silly or useless to
insert licenses into minified JavaScript, it is nonetheless *legally
required* to do so, regardless of the technical aspect of it.
My 2 points - during my own research about free
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I license all of my MediaWiki extensions under an MIT license since I want
people to be able to reuse the JS code on-wiki, but some people have
claimed that even MIT isn't compatible with CC-BY-SA [1]. I've been
On 5 March 2013 22:08, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I license all of my MediaWiki extensions under an MIT license since I want
people to be able to reuse the JS code on-wiki, but some people have
claimed
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
What do people think about using CC-Zero as a license? Now that's free
software!
The Open Source Initiative doesn't seem to really like the idea:
http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero.
A number of former and current contributors (notably Lee Daniel Crocker)
have released their
On 05/03/13 14:07, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
On 05/03/13 13:18, Max Semenik wrote:
If you mean that we have to insert that huge chunk of comments from
[1] into every page, the answer is no because we'll have to
include several licenses here, making it ridiculously long.
Please see the
quote name=Ryan Kaldari date=2013-03-05 time=14:01:42 -0800
What do people think about using CC-Zero as a license?
Now that's free software!
Relevant link for those interested in more background:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27081
--
| Greg GrossmeierGPG: B2FA 27B1
On 06.03.2013, 2:01 Ryan wrote:
I license all of my MediaWiki extensions under an MIT license since I
want people to be able to reuse the JS code on-wiki, but some people
have claimed that even MIT isn't compatible with CC-BY-SA [1]. I've been
thinking about switching to CC-Zero instead.
On 05/03/13 21:53, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 03/05/2013 12:29 PM, Luke Welling WMF wrote:
We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2
https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources
I am referring to Isarra's comment:
The licensing information
On 2013-03-05 6:29 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
What do people think about using CC-Zero as a license? Now that's free
software!
The Open Source Initiative doesn't seem to really like the idea:
http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero.
A number of former and
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, popular libraries
(such as Google's hosted versions of jQuery and others) always include
license headers in the minified versions.
That's not what I see.
If I look at jQuery as hosted by Google [1], it starts with
On 03/05/2013 02:33 PM, Platonides wrote:
On 05/03/13 21:53, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 03/05/2013 12:29 PM, Luke Welling WMF wrote:
We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2
https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-core/tree/master/resources
I am referring to
On 03/05/2013 01:44 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
Just wanted to share this piece of new documentation with everyone:
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Query_profiling_for_features_developers
Thank you for improving our documentation.
Is there any reason not to have this content at
On 03/05/2013 04:27 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
On 03/05/2013 01:44 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
Just wanted to share this piece of new documentation with everyone:
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Query_profiling_for_features_developers
Thank you for improving our documentation.
Is there any
Le 05/03/13 14:28, MZMcBride a écrit :
A number of former and current contributors (notably Lee Daniel Crocker)
have released their creative works and inventions into the public domain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Daniel_Crocker.
Does that include is work on the OCaml tool that
See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/glam/2013-March/000361.html
http://everybodyslibraries.com/2013/03/04/from-wikipedia-to-our-libraries/
: how do we get people from Wikipedia articles to the related offerings
of our local libraries?
On 2013-03-05 9:17 PM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Le 05/03/13 14:28, MZMcBride a écrit :
A number of former and current contributors (notably Lee Daniel Crocker)
have released their creative works and inventions into the public
domain:
On 03/04/2013 07:12 PM, Krinkle wrote:
Things this will catch are basically everything else. Any runtime error
that we can't detect in static analysis but will fail no matter what
browser you're in, such as:
* misspelled identifiers or syntax errors
* issues with ResourceLoader (mw.loader)
On 03/05/2013 09:27 AM, James Forrester wrote:
You can of course always counter-over-ride your global JS/CSS locally - the
composite rule would presumably be changed to:
1. file,
2. site
3. skin,
*. global-user
4. local-user
However, it's trickier to override JS then override CSS. For
On 2013-03-05 9:20 PM, Sumana Harihareswara suma...@wikimedia.org wrote:
See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/glam/2013-March/000361.html
http://everybodyslibraries.com/2013/03/04/from-wikipedia-to-our-libraries/
: how do we get people from Wikipedia articles to the related offerings
of
So an update. I'm pretty sure I've worked this out. CentralAuth will only
work if the user has previously visited the wiki project the login attempt
is made for. Many browsers these days refuse cookies for sites the user has
not visited. I'm still investigating but I'm pretty sure an image to a
Antoine Musso wrote:
Le 05/03/13 14:28, MZMcBride a écrit :
A number of former and current contributors (notably Lee Daniel Crocker)
have released their creative works and inventions into the public
domain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Daniel_Crocker.
Does that include is work on the
From what I *understand* you don't have an account on the local wiki until
you visit there. Could perhaps whatever api methods used by the app not be
triggering this auto-account-creation process properly like a normal web
interface edit would?
-bawolff
On 2013-03-05 11:17 PM, Jon Robson
On 05/03/13 23:45, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 03/05/2013 02:33 PM, Platonides wrote:
On 05/03/13 21:53, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 03/05/2013 12:29 PM, Luke Welling WMF wrote:
We should discuss them separately, but this core mediawiki JS is GPL2
Just for the record, sorry for not posting it right away:
Chris Steipp found the issue in my case to be the enabled Block
third-party cookies and site data chrome setting. Even though this is not
default at the moment, apparently Firefox is thinking of making this a
default. Enabling it breaks
On Mar 6, 2013, at 2:43 AM, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 03/05/2013 09:27 AM, James Forrester wrote:
You can of course always counter-over-ride your global JS/CSS locally - the
composite rule would presumably be changed to:
1. file,
2. site
3. skin,
*. global-user
This is based on a flawed reading of the GPL. The GPL covers the
distribution of program code. The license specifically states that “The act
of running the Program is not restricted”. (Furthermore: “Activities other
than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this
License; they
84 matches
Mail list logo
