Thank you for posting this Erik.
I initially didn't reply on this thread because to me it just seems to
be the same as the 3 or 4 times we've had the same discussion before.
No technical or procedural change is going to solve a problem that is
ultimately caused by a lack of time assigned to it. I
On 2011-03-23, Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote:
> On 3/22/11 6:05 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
>
> >Our code review tool is pretty nice, but we can't let it
> > be the tail that wags the dog.
>
> At the risk of being impolite -- our code review tool is not that nice.
> (I don't expect that anyone who worked
I believe the WMF intends to participate in World IPv6 Day [1],
additionally they publish some IPv6 statistics [2]. See also the IPv6
deployment page [3].
[1] http://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/
[2] http://ipv6and4.labs.wikimedia.org/
[3] http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/IPv6_deployment
Robert
O
On 2011-01-13, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Although the tag name issue is a valid point, it has nothing to do with my
> original email. So please start a separate discussion rather then hijacking
> this thread.
It is entirely to do with your originl e-mail, as it is a valid reason
why your o
On 2010-12-04, Roan Kattouw wrote:
> 2010/12/4 Robert Leverington :
> > The schedule suggests an intial deployment in January,
> > but my understanding is that even if there were no further commits it
> > would still take until March for it to catch up with HEAD.
> >
&g
On 2010-12-03, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> On IRC, Trevor lead the charge "to Etherpad!", and some of us
> followed. This was the result:
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_roadmap/1.17
It is unclear to me whether the plan is to branch from the latest
reviewed code or trunk HEA
On 2010-11-17, Dmitriy Sintsov wrote:
> What if my ajax call PHP function is required for extension's client
> scripts only and is meaningless to bots? (On-page interactivity). Why
> should everything to be an API, ajax is more than bots?
Because it provides a consistent, clean framework for mak
On 2010-11-02, Trevor Parscal wrote:
> The idea of dividing deploy and enable seems strange to me. Only in the
> case of a feature-flagged bit of core code or extension which has not
> been deployed yet would this even work, in all other cases deployment is
> enabling because you've just updated
On 2010-11-02, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> We'd then pick off the keywords as we step through the process (e.g.
> once it's reviewed, remove the "need-review" keyword). We could then
> generate three queries to get us the three queues I alluded to above:
> 1. Issues with all three keywords. These are
On 2010-10-13, Trevor Parscal wrote:
> Thank you, everyone, for responding so far (not trying to stop you
> here). Here's where it seems we're at.
>
>1. Having an extension called "Vector" is neither descriptive or
> clear, and it is anticipated to cause confusion.
>2. System admi
On 2010-09-24, Dmitriy Sintsov wrote:
> One probably can rename it to another temporary name? Then move to final
> location during the next request, according to previousely passed
> cookie?
>
> Speaking of cookies, there are millions ways of looking at them, FF's
> WebDeveloper extension, HTTP
On 2010-09-21, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Max Semenik wrote:
> > On 21.09.2010, 6:09 Rob wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure what you mean by this. October 15 would be the branch
> >> point, not the release date. Are you saying that we have to release
> >> to production one
On 2010-09-07, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> I am both a long-time community member and a new WMF paid developer (in
> the SF office) so I think I'm in a unique position to clear up some
> misconceptions.
>
> First of all, all this talk of secret listservs and IRC channels is
> malarkey. Yes, there are
On 2010-09-03, Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote:
> On 9/3/10 4:55 PM, Robert Leverington wrote:
>
> >It's very dissapointing to see many of the suggestions discarded almost
> >immediatley by most of the staff members replying as "unrealistic".
>
> I can't
On 2010-09-02, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> Over the last couple of years, MediaWiki development has moved from
> being almost entirely volunteer-based to having a large contingent of
> paid developers. A lot of people have noted that this has led to a
> lot of work being done without much community invo
On 2010-09-02, MZMcBride wrote:
> Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> > What's the alternative? There are *always* going to be many more
> > ideas than implementers. Ideas are cheap. Wikimedia has to decide
> > which features are the most critical to invest developer time in.
> > Their decision is not going t
In the past it has been concluded that extensions do not need to be
licensed under the GPL, and I think that is the general agreement at
the moment.
Robert
On 2010-07-22, Andrew Fitzgerald wrote:
> Saw an article mentioned on Slashdot about Wordpress themes and plugins
> being required to be disr
On 2010-01-13, Tei wrote:
> %% The Death of Wiki %%
>
> Ultimatelly, al wikis lose the war against entropy and are abandoned.
> This will hit all wikipedia wikis, and all based on mediawiki. While
> you can't stop that, you can code something so the resulting dead body
> of wiki is not pure shit.
ld get a dev room together with the
> other CMS/wiki projects, I would expect that we would have slots for ~4 talks
> on MediaWiki, and possibly one or two talks in cooperation with the other
> projects on common problems/solutions/whatever.
I will be coming to FOSDEM '10 and a
e a
> candidate in the door by the end of the year.
Is the "Senior Software Architect" position that was originally going to
be opened for you to move to still planned, or will the new CTO have a
simillar number of responsibilities?
--
Robert Leverington
http://rhl
g to worry about, you bring up some valid
points that are more often that not, ignored.
> Dan
Please can you properly break your lines in e-mail though, to 73(?)
characters per a line - should be possible to specify this in your
client.
--
Robert Leverington
http://rhl.me.uk/
signature
erally these aren't things that a single person can answer, which is
one reason why we have a multiple release canidate policy when declaring
versions stable.
--
Robert Leverington
http://rhl.me.uk/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
t defines trunk - it
hasn't been tested to the same level as releases. Although I think this
is case where everyone will have different opinions, I'm not sure of the
current official stance.
--
Robert Leverington
http://rhl.me.uk/
signature.asc
expect developers
who already don't have enough time to spoon feed you information they
don't have. The WMF deployment branch is already well beyond what end
users should expect.
--
Robert Leverington
http://rhl.me.uk/
signature.asc
Description: D
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:58:43AM -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> My thought is that the 5 tags that are marked as well-supported could be
> used, but be very cautious about abandoning 4. There are a lot of old
> machines out there, and many cannot upgrade to newer browsers, because
> they
25 matches
Mail list logo
