On 6 March 2013 15:20, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> From: "David Gerard"
>> People will say any spurious bollocks
> What's the license on that observation, David? :-)
WTFPL of course!
- d.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
On 5 March 2013 22:08, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Ryan Kaldari 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-
On 5 March 2013 11:56, Alexander Berntsen 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 merel
On 4 March 2013 14:57, Max Semenik wrote:
> Another must read: https://twitter.com/DEVOPS_BORAT
That counts as documentation.
- d.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 25 February 2013 15:02, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> After the discussion last week, I want to scope out a release policy so
> that we'll all know what to expect.
As an end user, this entirely meets my expectations of what's
reasonable to ask. Let's see if it's achievable (I don't see why it
On 24 February 2013 15:22, Krinkle wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 3:51 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> If it isn't being maintained against 1.19, then is there an exit
>> strategy? Is there a way to remove LQT while preserving the content
>> usably?
> I'm not sur
On 24 February 2013 14:44, Platonides wrote:
> On 23/02/13 23:58, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
>> That is, I think it is safe to say LQT will remain usable in its current
>> state on any coming MW versions for the foreseeable future.
>> Right now, though, all I'm looking for is a confirmation that
On 22 February 2013 12:03, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Another thing that would be nice to have on
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Version_lifecycle or elsewhere is what are
> reasonable expectations about the stable releases. For instance, we know
> that 1.x.0 releases are always a ni
On 21 February 2013 16:02, Siebrand Mazeland (WMF)
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Mark A. Hershberger
> wrote:
>> * Champion features that non-WMF users want. This includes things like
>> searching inside a category and a WYSIWYG editor.
> As a non-native speaker I sometimes have
On 12 February 2013 23:48, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> I'm going to start paying close attention to people who have problems
> upgrading from 1.19 over the next couple of years so that when we hit
> the next LTS (1.25) in 2015, we'll have fewer issues for the people
> moving from 1.19 to 1.25.
On 9 February 2013 23:00, Platonides wrote:
> You could do it with openoffice.org/libreoffice, although I agree that
> getting all the dependencies right for running in the server is a bit
> tedious. You can also use Excel itself for that (eg. COM automation), as
> suggested by vitalif, supposing
On 7 February 2013 17:06, Dan Andreescu wrote:
> I was on the other side of this, albeit a while back. We had to decide
> between MediaWiki and Confluence to power Disney's ParentPedia (which has
> since been abandoned):
> The main reasons we chose Confluence:
> * An easier to understand API. T
On 7 February 2013 11:37, Antoine Musso wrote:
> The following requests for comment is about having a consistent set of
> thumbnails sizes that are allowed to be rendered and let the client
> browser to do the up or down scaling.
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Standardized_
On 6 February 2013 23:58, Tim Starling wrote:
> I think we can turn MediaWiki into a fully featured wiki engine which
> can compete with the likes of Confluence. I don't think it can ever
> compete with TiddlyWiki or UseModWiki in their respective niches.
(veering slightly off topic)
What in C
On 22 January 2013 17:37, wrote:
>> Per the previous comments in this post, anything over 1% precision
>> should be regarded as failure, and our Fancy Captcha was at 25% a year
>> ago. So yeah, approximately all, and our captcha is well known to
>> actually suck.
> Maybe you'll just use recaptc
On 22 January 2013 04:28, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 03:00 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Yes, but to count as successful it would have to block approximately
>> all, I'd think.
> That's dubious. Blocking all spambots is not the goal of any CAPTCHA.
&g
On 21 January 2013 08:43, Bawolff Bawolff wrote:
> Does
> http://elie.im/publication/text-based-captcha-strengths-and-weaknessescount
> as evidence? (Copied and pasted from the mailing list archives)
404 :-) Correct link:
http://elie.im/publication/text-based-captcha-strengths-and-weaknesses
On 21 January 2013 07:56, Andre Klapper wrote:
> "at all" implies that some spambots are blocked at least?
Yes, but to count as successful it would have to block approximately
all, I'd think.
I mean, you could redefine "something that doesn't block all spambots
but does hamper a significant pr
On 21 January 2013 05:13, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
> On 01/20/2013 04:22 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> The MediaWiki captcha is literally worse than useless: it doesn't keep
>> spambots out, and it does keep some humans out.
> I don't see how the spambot statement is tr
On 20 January 2013 21:22, David Gerard wrote:
> The MediaWiki captcha is literally worse than useless: it doesn't keep
> spambots out, and it does keep some humans out.
Not to mention this, which delighted Tom Morris at an editathon he was running:
https://commons.wikimed
The MediaWiki captcha is literally worse than useless: it doesn't keep
spambots out, and it does keep some humans out.
(I was just reminded of this by a friend I lured into joining
Wikivoyage - who can see and is highly literate, but found the captcha
really troublesome.)
Why are we still using t
On 14 January 2013 19:09, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> As a result, LTS is firming up:
> * Security patches supplied until May 2015.
\o/ THANK YOU. This is the necessary and sufficient condition.
> * Compatibility extension for those features that can be put into an
> extension.
> * Back port
On 9 January 2013 00:08, James Forrester wrote:
> Understood (though I didn't know about 1.19 being an LTS release; who
> is doing the supporting, exactly, and what does 'support' entail here?
> [*] is unclear…).
Tarball version is "supported" (security fixes, etc) for the purpose
of not having
On 4 January 2013 17:02, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> Is anyone else interested in helping to make this happen?
I have no coding ability but would LOVE this for our work 1.19
instances, and would be most pleased to test.
- d.
___
Wikitech-l mailing
On 28 December 2012 17:36, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
> The big one, as I see it (quoting from https://www.torproject.org/ ):
> "Activists use Tor to anonymously report abuses from danger zones.
> Whistleblowers use Tor to safely report on corruption." Iran, Burma,
> and China come up a lot in
On 26 December 2012 17:31, Chris McMahon wrote:
> Is it time to start such a discussion? Or is this premature?
Everyone has to first read and understand (possibly with shuddering)
https://twitter.com/DEVOPS_BORAT
- d.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
W
On 26 December 2012 14:57, John wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Andrew Dunbar wrote:
>> It would also be great if these pages were marked in the dump files too.
> That is why I was suggesting adding a field to the page table, instead
> of using page_props
It's not clear to me that t
On 24 December 2012 10:00, Jon Robson wrote:
> Last week I was working on a feature that I didn't want to surface on
> a disambiguation page. I was surprised to find there was no way I
> could distinguish between a normal article and a disambiguation page.
> The disambiguation pages have no clear
On 16 December 2012 15:40, Yuvi Panda wrote:
> As James said, Mobile Editing is already in Beta - along with Photo Upload.
> We're also working on a dedicated Media Upload application - IIRC 'at least
> 1,000 retained Mobile Uploads a Month' is a goal we intend to hit by July
> or so.
Ship in a
Yes, we do in fact need a usable MediaWiki editing and upload
interface for mobile browsers. Next big moon-shot project?
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/world/Wikipedia-sees-future-and-threat-in-cell-phones-/-/1068/1642900/-/oe9qfq/-/index.html
- d.
___
On 14 December 2012 10:26, Antoine Musso wrote:
> Le 12/12/12 21:57, David Gerard a écrit :
>> If anyone owning a chunk of H.264 had a problem with Wikimedia doing
>> things with H.264 in the US, it could only be bad for them. I would
>> suggest this aspect isn't real
On 13 December 2012 10:44, Daniel Friesen wrote:
> More importantly while quality is nice, that's not what's really important.
> More important than quality is coverage. Getting photos of those things that
> we don't have photos for. That is where mobile devices will always be
> superior than sai
On 12 December 2012 11:44, Antoine Musso wrote:
> Could we host h.264 videos and related transcoders in a country that
> does not recognize software patents?
> Hints:
> - I am not a lawyer
> - WMF has server in Netherlands, EU.
If anyone owning a chunk of H.264 had a problem with Wikimedia do
Original thread from March starts here:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/59684
As I noted back then, this is a drastic policy change that needs a lot
wider discussion, including on the wikis, than just wikitech-l.
On 12 December 2012 18:38, Michael Dale wr
On 12 December 2012 17:26, Luke Welling wrote:
> Without trying to downplay the importance of ideological purity, keep in
> mind that Mozilla, who have largely the same ideology on the matter have
> conceded defeat on the practical side of it after investing significant
> effort.
That's because
On 12 December 2012 15:32, Thomas Fellows wrote:
> This is awesome! Is there any write-up of the migration process floating
> around?
+1
In fact, this would be a nice thing to put on the WMF blog. It'll
certainly get a lot of linkage and reporting around the geekosphere.
- d.
_
On 12 December 2012 14:38, Brad Jorsch wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:34 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 12 December 2012 14:28, Brad Jorsch wrote:
>>> The enwiki article on MariaDB has claimed MediaWiki "officially"
>>> supports it since October
On 12 December 2012 14:28, Brad Jorsch wrote:
> The enwiki article on MariaDB has claimed MediaWiki "officially"
> supports it since October 2012.[1] Perhaps that's a {{citation
> needed}}.
> [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=519286745
I would have thought it would have
On 12 December 2012 00:22, Platonides wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> OTOH, see recent coverage of Wikipedia in Africa, where it's basically
>> going to be on phones. Cheap shitty smartphones. That the kids are
>> *desperate* to get Wikipedia on. Do we want to make tho
On 12 December 2012 00:04, MZMcBride wrote:
> Looking at the big picture, I don't think we'll ever see widespread editing
> from mobile devices. The user experience is simply too awful. The best I
> think most people are hoping for is the ability to easily fix a typo, maybe,
> but even then you h
On 11 December 2012 23:15, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Since there are multiple potential paths for changing the policy
> (keeping things ideologically pure, allowing conversion on ingestion,
> allowing h.264 but only for mobile, allowing h.264 for all devices,
> etc.), and since these issues are prett
On 27 November 2012 21:58, rexx wrote:
> The ability to turn this on or off for your browser is unfortunately hidden
> away in a tab in the 'Filter preferences ...' of ABP. There's also an
> individual whitelist there. It's probably worth reading the developer's blog
> at http://adblockplus.org/b
On 27 November 2012 17:09, Andre Klapper wrote:
> 2) Look at our priority definitions in
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bugzilla/Fields#Priority
> a) "normal" means "Should be fixed by the next release."[1]
> This is extremely unrealistic with above usage of "Normal".
You may be up against h
On 27 November 2012 16:39, Andre Klapper wrote:
> I propose adding a *new* priority called "Immediate" which should only
> be used to mark really urgent stuff to fix. This priority would be added
> above the existing "Highest" priority.
Has anyone suggested a separate "urgency" parameter?
- d
On 25 November 2012 21:36, Raylton P. Sousa wrote:
> I keep thinking that (particularly) the wikivoyage[1] could be much
> better if we had good maps similar to the dantonwiki[2] (that runs on
> localwiki[3]).
> Is there any similar map project in mediawiki that can be activated in
> small wikivo
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38799
Is there anyone who can look into this? It was raised on wikimediauk-l again.
- d.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 24 October 2012 19:08, Peter Youngmeister wrote:
> As of this moment, all imagescalers are now running ubuntu 12.04
> precise pangolin. This should close a number of bugzilla tickets, as
> well as remove the final blocker for timed media handler.
\o/
You know, I was just going to ask again
On 17 October 2012 09:15, Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:
> Le 17/10/2012 10:07, David Gerard a écrit :
>> And some images would need a credit *trail*. And specified credit for
>> some CC images gets wacky too.
> I do not think we need to cite all the authors (could be indeed
On 17 October 2012 09:02, Platonides wrote:
> Note however that there are some pictures with multiple authors
> (derivative works, collages...) and those are harder to determine and
> store (a simple field for the author is not enough).
And some images would need a credit *trail*. And specified
On 28 September 2012 17:01, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> I do agree with David Gerard's assessment, though. We need to make sure
> that whatever we use is going to work with package management tools that
> Debian and Redhat and the like already use.
The other reason is, of course, making the d
On 28 September 2012 15:25, Derric Atzrott wrote:
>>Where is that quote from? It is so incredibly true.
> Sorry all. I meant to send that to just him.
And then I failed to notice I was sending to the list too.
apt-get purge clue
- d.
___
Wikitec
I made it up at work a few weeks ago :-) We were discussing the
questionable maintainability of apps and languages that insist on
handrolling their own dependency management, particularly when they do
it in a way that doesn't match how distros do it.
On 28 September 2012 15:23, Derric Atzrott wro
On 28 September 2012 02:47, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> The problem, though, is that there is no way to install, use, or update
> extensions apart from doing it by hand. Requiring the installation of
> multiple modules by hand isn't going to lead to a thriving, modular
> ecosystem. We need a d
On 19 September 2012 09:25, David Gerard wrote:
> The Commons reuse guide [1] notes that hotlinking thumbnails is
> allowed, but it's a terrible idea and you should either store the
> image locally or use InstantCommons (which works wonderfully).
[1]
https://commons.wiki
On 19 September 2012 09:20, aude wrote:
> If anything, I think in the download button / dialog in Commons, we should
> have an option to allow user to choose image of any size to download, in
> addition to the preset choices. :)The thumbnails can be temporary I
> suppose, and hope no one uses
On 17 September 2012 12:36, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 17 September 2012 11:25, David Gerard wrote:
>> Do we have any stats on IPv6 accesses and edits on Wikimedia sites?
>> I see this page on stats, which suggests it's literally so small we
>> can't even count it
Do we have any stats on IPv6 accesses and edits on Wikimedia sites?
I see this page on stats, which suggests it's literally so small we
can't even count it:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportCountryData.htm
Is that actually the case? 'Cos we do know IPv6 edits occur, therefo
On 14 September 2012 18:05, Matthias Mullie wrote:
> Technical issues are the reason for its slow ramp-up: the underlying
> architecture does not yet allow us to safely deploy to 100% of enwiki and
> we're currently working on resolving that.
So is the AFTv4 data doing anything or being used
On 4 September 2012 13:06, Chad wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:02 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> The essential problem is that people can't get stuff through the
>> gatekeepers, so they come up with a workaround. Noting that the
>> workaround is insecure and saying &q
On 4 September 2012 12:16, Yury Katkov wrote:
> Maybe the widgets on the website should have security verification
> badges? On the pages of secured widgets the badge would say that it's
> safe to use them. As far as I know the Widgets extension designed
> specially to create safe alternative to
On 1 September 2012 00:38, Brion Vibber wrote:
> The current syntax is actually hard to machine-parse, with lots of
> language-specific overrides and weird options that combine in non-obvious
> ways. Not to mention that it overrides the simple link syntax... I wish
> when we'd renamed Image: to F
On 31 August 2012 18:21, Jon Robson wrote:
> +1 I was very surprised to learn any thumbnail sizes could be generated. We
> should standardise on a tiny, small,medium high and original resolutions. 5
> sizes seems more than enough.
I would suggest checking against the corpus before saying "x sho
On 31 August 2012 13:36, Ariel T. Glenn wrote:
> 1. We could generate and keep only certain sizes, tossing the rest.
> 2. We could keep *nothing*, scaling all media as required.
> 3. We could have a cron job that was clever about tossing thumbs every
> day (not sure how easy it would be to be
On 23 August 2012 22:24, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> "Here's what we're proposing to do.
> [please note: this message was posted here by a bot. If you want to discuss
> this -- here's where it's at: ___. Sory for the hassle.]"
+1
It's not two-way communication, but it sure beats zero-way
commun
On 23 August 2012 10:38, Tei wrote:
> I read this mail-list for pure entertainment. I am trying to imagine
> what cool things lua will allow. But seems more a improvement of
> speed. Speed will allow cool things to happen. So is more like a
> indirect improvement (and probably a huge one). Spee
On 22 August 2012 22:46, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> Speaking of complex templates, has there been any work to move existing
> templates to Lua? Because I'd love to start on the ArticleHistory template
> if nobody else is doing it.
I think at this stage it's safe to assume that the field is clear and
On 22 August 2012 20:58, Ryan Lane wrote:
> I don't think the editor community has much reason to participate. The
> template creator community does. They are more than technical to
> understand things on wikitech-l.
AIUI the Lua idea was explicitly run past the few people who write the
insanel
On 22 August 2012 14:03, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> Right now, there are still some minor things to finish, but we expect to
> roll out all of Nischay's GSoC work with the upcoming release (SMW 1.8).
Excellent!
- d.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikite
On 18 August 2012 19:35, Platonides wrote:
> Can we restore the old files from backups?
How far back do we have backups? Is there any automated way to detect
corruption in the archives?
- d.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.or
On 17 August 2012 22:08, Ryan Lane wrote:
>> The link breakage sucks, but it's not my primary concern at this point. My
>> primary concern is that the archive now appears to be corrupt. Messages have
>> apparently gone missing from years ago (e.g., the Tim Starling Day
>> announcement from Octobe
On 17 August 2012 11:46, MZMcBride wrote:
> As MaxSem commented, perhaps Mailman ought to be re-evaluated as the mailing
> list software, though I've yet to come across (m)any software packages that
> are better, unfortunately.
There isn't really anything better. It's ridiculously better than a
On 17 August 2012 02:23, MZMcBride wrote:
> Daniel Zahn wrote:
>> In this case the request was for a complete thread to be removed.
>> Since many people reply with full quotes it usually repeats the
>> information in almost every message. ("TOFU"-posting). But you are
>> right, even in these case
On 6 August 2012 17:46, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> Verify what David said (I'm not technical, but it matches the description
> I've been given). Our ops guys and girls are currently poking things, which
> is slowing down a larger/more official announcement, but I'll see what I
> can do.
The "1:06" i
... so I might as well tell you too. Info gathered by joggling the
elbows of the people on #wikimedia-tech actually doing the work:
This was two overland cables between Tampa and Virginia (Washington
DC, to be precise). *Both* cables were cut, near the Tampa end. The
"redundant" fibre wasn't redun
The BBC asks:
* where was the cut - on land, at sea? Do we know more about the cut?
* when did it start and when did it end?
* any other useful information?
This one may rate a short tech blog post :-)
- d.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@list
On 6 August 2012 15:53, David Gerard wrote:
> On 6 August 2012 15:52, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>> Hi, after crashing an hour or so ago EN Wikipedia has started to come back
>> but with a really strange appearance - less usable than Vector. Rumour has
>> it that someone cut
On 6 August 2012 15:52, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> Hi, after crashing an hour or so ago EN Wikipedia has started to come back
> but with a really strange appearance - less usable than Vector. Rumour has
> it that someone cut through a fibre optic cable in Florida, so far none of
> the parties to
Forwarded message ------
From: David Gerard
Date: 2 August 2012 23:23
Subject: Re: Query from the BBC Newsroom
To: [snip]
Technical hiccups happen occasionally, unfortunately :-) Most pass
momentarily, more noteworthy ones tend to get noted on the technical
mailing list. I would
On 2 August 2012 22:38, Lewis Cawte wrote:
> From #wikimedia-operations
> [22:24:08] What happened?
> [22:24:43] you know, everyone else gets vacation, the wiki
> takes a 5 minute bathroom break and everyone's upset !
> [22:26:13] in reality, looks like a bad squid config was
> pushed, then wh
On 29 July 2012 16:01, Lewis Cawte wrote:
> On 29/07/2012 15:45, David Gerard wrote:
>> What are the statistics for volunteer contribution before and after
>> Gerrit?
>> Has anyone kept track of such numbers?
> I believe, although I may not be correct, Sumana requested
On 29 July 2012 15:39, Lewis Cawte wrote:
> I'd say I kind of agree with the other points, but I'd also sort of
> disagree. Being someone that doesn't commit/push a lot of code, the things I
> have done (which, are relatively simple) we're easy for me to do...
What are the statistics for volunt
On 27 July 2012 16:35, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
> Please note that this conversation might also be cross-posted to or
> continued on our design mailing list:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Without joining a whole other list, can I just ask what attention is
being paid
On 27 July 2012 11:01, John Elliot wrote:
> Are there any initiatives in the MediaWiki community for a MediaWiki
> theme that supports 'responsive design' [1] -- where content is properly
> laid out in an accessible form on all manner of devices including
> desktops and smart phones?
> [1] http:/
On 22 June 2012 18:47, Leslie Carr wrote:
> While I am not speaking for server hardening, our network can handle
> an extra 75 Mbps without a problem.
> However, this is a moot point if the community decides we want to
> talk, we in Operations can talk with freenode operations people and
> se
On 19 June 2012 21:19, Derric Atzrott wrote:
>>Since both the deployment review pipeline as well as the political decision
> pipeline can be ~quite long~ probably best to have it all supported so we
> can just adjust a configuration file once we decide one way or another.
> I agree with this ide
On 19 June 2012 00:30, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> Additionally there's the question of adding H.264 transcode *output*, which
> would let us serve video to mobile devices and to Safari and IE 9 without
> any custom codec or Java installations. As far as I know that's not a huge
> technical difficul
Just curious as to the state of video ingestion in MediaWiki - I know
we were planning to do something such that video users could upload
whatever comes out of their phone or camera, and of course WebM was
released two years ago and support in MediaWiki has apparently been
waiting just on this.
So
- d.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 13 June 2012 21:29, Chad wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Antoine Musso wrote:
>> Organizing a logo context, just like we did for the Wikipedia logo, is
>> probably the best idea. Thanks Trevor for remembering us about it.
> I think a contest may indeed be in order then :)
The key
On 12 June 2012 22:47, Chad wrote:
> What support would there be for changing the MediaWiki logo and
> being consistent with it?
Very little, I'd hope. I think the SVG rendering is horrible compared
to the photo version.
> 1) It scales much nicer. The current version looks absolutely awful at
On 12 June 2012 21:45, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> We're still planning to actually publish the tarballs and issue
> security releases. We might even get in there and fix some installer
> bugs as the crop up.
> Sure, there's all types of work that would make MediaWiki for third
> parties great:
> * M
On 7 June 2012 18:55, Chad wrote:
> Looking at the Ubuntu package[0], there's a *bunch* of other patches
> Have these all been upstreamed (some obviously have, and some are
> backports)
> [0] http://packages.ubuntu.com/quantal/web/mediawiki
By the way - that's still MW 1.15. Is it too late for
On 9 June 2012 21:51, Anthony wrote:
> Here at BestISP, we assign you a unique number that you can never
> change! We attach this unique number to all your Internet
> communications, so that every time you go back to a website, that
> website knows they're dealing with the same person.
> Switch
On 8 June 2012 02:32, Tim Starling wrote:
> I've long believed that MediaWiki should be considered a project of
> the WMF, on the same level as the wikis we host.
It's quite definitely on-mission: it makes this form of
knowledge-spreading normal and expected.
(Of course, just consider the pere
On 8 June 2012 11:49, Risker wrote:
> I have never said that moving to IPv6 is a bad idea. What I am
> complaining about is the dismissive attitude taken toward the volunteers
> that are stuck cleaning up the mess when Engineering decides to do
> something, apparently on the spur of the moment
On 7 June 2012 18:07, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 12:55 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> I'll start hacking that page to bits, on the assumption that it needs
>> burning and starting over. What is Debian's mailing list for
>> MediaWiki? I went look
On 7 June 2012 16:26, Chad wrote:
> We should kill those distro-specific pages and I've been saying that for
> years. Most of the advice ends up being rather generic, it forks the
> content, and they generally end up being abandoned and out of date.
*Not while they need to exist*. At the least,
On 6 June 2012 23:53, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
By the way, I noticed today that this page exists and is in sore need
of updating:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Running_MediaWiki_on_Debian_GNU/Linux
- d.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech
On 6 June 2012 23:53, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> To encourage cooperation, I started the low-traffic
> mediawiki-distributors last week. I also asked Debian to work on
> packaging 1.19 instead of 1.18 for their impending freeze and have been
> working with them on their pkg-mediawiki-devel mai
On 6 June 2012 19:31, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 02:25 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Last I recalled, the Debian MediaWiki was regarded as a pit of
>> gratuitous weirdness of sufficient extent that it was all but
>> deprecated, and any sane admin installs from
201 - 300 of 756 matches
Mail list logo
