Le 05/11/13 21:45, Ori Livneh a écrit :
If this drives you barking mad too, fix it. Should be doable by
injecting a bit of code here:
http://git.wikimedia.org/blob/integration%2Fzuul.git/ac3ba4fe9f9dace5673a6537ef0d3ccf5a054ac7/zuul%2Fmerger.py#L71
I will personally build a statue in your
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 09:40:59 +0100, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
We could surely add a feature in Zuul that would let us ignore conflicts
for some files. That should be possible by defining a merge driver
using the ours strategy and then apply that driver in /.gitattributes
for the
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Nathan Larson nathanlarson3...@gmail.comwrote:
(snip)
I actually like the formalism a bit - since it at least makes sure
that they don't rot. BDFLs are good.
Does it keep them from rotting? It looks like of the 60 RFCs in draft or in
discussion, 24 were
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
tl;dr: I’d appreciate thoughts from the Wikimedia technical community
at large whether the designation of individual technical contributors
as architects should be meaningful, and if so, how to expand it
beyond the original
Thinking about this, I am somewhat afraid that any public voting process
may become more similar to Requests for Bureaucratship (RfB).
For those not familiar with this process, it's an even more brutal thing
than RfA (Requests for Adminship). Bureaucrats are socially the people that
close the
Le 06/11/13 02:57, Erik Moeller a écrit :
tl;dr: I’d appreciate thoughts from the Wikimedia technical community
at large whether the designation of individual technical contributors
as architects should be meaningful, and if so, how to expand it
beyond the original triumvirate (Brion, Tim
Hey,
Some thoughts, in no particular order:
* Titles do not reflect ability, they reflect how titles are assigned in an
organization
* Some people see titles such as software architect as a stamp of
superiority
* Some people abuse their titles
* We would indeed be advised to keep the distinction
Hi.
Our Bugzilla installation at https://bugs.wikimedia.org/ currently
restricts the capabilities of new users as a knee-jerk response to prior
Bugzilla-related vandalism. There are further details at
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/40497.
Increasingly new users are making manual requests to be
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.comwrote:
* MediaWiki is not a shining beacon of good architecture. I'd argue it
should mostly be considered as a big blob of generally badly designed
legacy code
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
-Chad
My brief thoughts:
* It makes sense to have a handful of folks as a core review planning
group.
* However, I would consider avoiding using the term Architect for its
members as it's easily conflated with existing WMF job titles. I think job
titles are pretty unreliable indicators at the best of
Hey,
* MediaWiki is not a shining beacon of good architecture. I'd argue it
should mostly be considered as a big blob of generally badly designed
legacy code
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
It does, as it implies serious mistakes where made in the past, and that
one
So that's why suddenly I started receiving these email requests :D
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:24 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hi.
Our Bugzilla installation at https://bugs.wikimedia.org/ currently
restricts the capabilities of new users as a knee-jerk response to prior
On 6 November 2013 13:24, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Our Bugzilla installation at https://bugs.wikimedia.org/ currently
restricts the capabilities of new users as a knee-jerk response to prior
Bugzilla-related vandalism. There are further details at
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:24 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Our Bugzilla installation at https://bugs.wikimedia.org/ currently
restricts the capabilities of new users as a knee-jerk response to prior
Bugzilla-related vandalism. There are further details at
I don't want anything to stand in the way of good users
Perhaps something similar to autoconfirmed as Thehelpfulone suggested, i.e.
X total edits across all Wikimedia projects (or on a single Wikimedia
project), and account was created Y days ago. There are details to work
through with that (e.g.
Pre-emptive send wins again. That was meant to be I don't want anything to
stand in the way of good users filing bug reports, but we need to be aware
of the previous issues that led to the current situation.
Dan
On 6 November 2013 15:45, Dan Garry dga...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I don't want
I like the idea of more liberally (and perhaps automatically) giving out
the right. As it stands, I'm not even sure who can give out editbugs other
than Andre. In any case I understand it to be a very small number who can.
For a start it would be nice if pretty much any active developer could.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:24 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Our Bugzilla installation at https://bugs.wikimedia.org/ currently
restricts the capabilities of new users as a knee-jerk response to prior
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
How about we make editbugs self-granting? That is, if you've got editbugs
you can give it to others (like we did with Coder a few years ago). It
works
pretty well, scales infinitely, and tends to protect itself against
In general: I am happy to change Bugzilla settings, whatever is agreed
on in the end.
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 07:38 -0800, Rob Lanphier wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:24 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Our Bugzilla installation at https://bugs.wikimedia.org/ currently
restricts the
On 11/06/2013 11:16 AM, Andre Klapper wrote:
Bugzilla does not allow centrally reverting all actions by a specific
person: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735213
Luckily, though, it does track actions by user. As a result, I was able
to revert the vandalism. But it does seem like
Thank you, Quim, for trying to focus this discussion on the MediaWiki
community instead of just the WMF. This is a very valuable thing.
That, with Brion's do-it-ocracy (which assumes, I think, that we're
encouraging and enabling more people to do it) are excellent
approaches to this who are the
On 11/06/2013 07:24 AM, Petr Bena wrote:
So that's why suddenly I started receiving these email requests :D
No, you are getting suddenly these emails from a group of students at
http://foss.amrita.ac.in because a mentor told them to do so. We have
explained the right process to them (asking in
On 11/06/2013 02:33 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
Do the three architects consider themselves assuming this role as WMF
employees or as community members?
For myself -- I've been a Wikipedia MediaWiki community contributor since
long before there was a Wikimedia Foundation. I still think of WMF as
Good! I'd like to run some tests on some of our data (we run several SMW
instances). I will have to prepare a separate environment with the latest
versions of MW and SMW and the Memento extension. Nothing too difficult,
but it'll probably take some time.
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Herbert
On 11/06/2013 12:30 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
Do they consider their roles to be part of a MediaWiki centric
meritocracy or a Wikimedia centric meritocracy?
(...)
I also caution against use of the meritocracy term, as I think it's
pretty loaded and has a history of enabling stagnation and
Hi,
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2013-11-06
We just finished the meeting, and you can find the notes at
http://integration-meetbot.instance-proxy.wmflabs.org/wikimedia-meetbot/2013/wikimedia-meetbot.2013-11-06-22.03.html
We discussed TitleValue,
Rob Lanphier wrote:
We tried reversing it several times, and each time were rewarded with an
arduous cleanup task. We gave up trying after months. So, calling it
kneejerk is simply wrong. We had a determined vandal who may still be
among us, and will likely exploit whatever loophole we open up.
Quim Gil wrote:
On 11/06/2013 07:24 AM, Petr Bena wrote:
So that's why suddenly I started receiving these email requests :D
No, you are getting suddenly these emails from a group of students at
http://foss.amrita.ac.in because a mentor told them to do so. We have
explained the right process to
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Ori Livneh o...@wikimedia.org wrote:
How can I test it?
--
Glad you asked! Module storage is enabled by default on the beta
cluster, and on test test2 wikis.
It's also enabled on MediaWiki.org now, the last such wiki before
doing performance
quote name=Greg Grossmeier date=2013-10-19 time=14:43:38 -0700
tldr; I like a modified Option C, but also propose a very different
Option D that I think would also be good, either now or as the next next
step.
This Monday is a US Holiday, so no deploys that day. Seems like a
reasonable week to
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org wrote:
* It makes sense to have a handful of folks as a core review planning
group.
* However, I would consider avoiding using the term Architect for its
members as it's easily conflated with existing WMF job titles. I think
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:18 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Rob Lanphier wrote:
We can certainly do something different than what we're doing, though. It
should be easy to get editbugs; just not so easy that a vandal can get it.
Okay, let's. I proposed reverting the settings change.
[x-posted]
Hello,
The Wikimedia Language Engineering team will be hosting an IRC office
hour on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 between 15:00 - 16:00 UTC on
#wikimedia-office. (See below for timezone conversion and other details.)
We will be talking about some of our recent and upcoming projects
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2013-11-06
We just finished the meeting, and you can find the notes at
35 matches
Mail list logo
