On 11/11/2012 05:17 PM, Andre Klapper wrote:
> I'll stick to "WONTFIX = we are against fixing this request" now.
FWIW, I also found it helpful to exclude the "lowest" and
"unprioritized" priorities from my queries. This keeps the "noise" out
and helps you focus on the things that really matter.
On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 11:08 -0800, Chad wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Mark A. Hershberger
> wrote:
> > I felt that WONTFIX should be used for things that the developers
> > clearly thought were bad ideas -- "Support Facebook logins and 'Like
> > this page' in MediaWiki core" would be
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 10:32 AM, Andre Klapper wrote:
>> So in case there is a culture in Wikimedia Bugzilla to not use WONTFIX
>> too often, it could be interesting to discuss its use and the reasons.
>
> Before I left WMF, I had come to use th
On 11/11/2012 10:32 AM, Andre Klapper wrote:
> So in case there is a culture in Wikimedia Bugzilla to not use WONTFIX
> too often, it could be interesting to discuss its use and the reasons.
Before I left WMF, I had come to use the lowest priority to indicate
what you're using WONTFIX for.
I did
On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 17:26 +0100, emijrp wrote:
> In Commons there is a bunch of broken/corrupt/missing files (most old
> versions of the same file).
For rather specific issues, could you please file a bug report with
enough info in bugzilla.wikimedia.org, if it doesn't exist yet?
Thanks a lot i
In Commons there is a bunch of broken/corrupt/missing files (most old
versions of the same file).
2012/11/11 MZMcBride
> Hi.
>
> Is there a policy or guideline about the level to which Wikimedia wikis
> care
> about data integrity? There are a few specific cases I'm talking about:
>
> * edits or
Hi,
On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 16:51 +0100, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Andre, the answer is in this one-line comment by Brion:
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16614#c3
> None of this bugs should be closed unless both the reported occurrence
> and the underlying problem are fixed.
Andre, the answer is in this one-line comment by Brion:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16614#c3
None of this bugs should be closed unless both the reported occurrence
and the underlying problem are fixed. The alternative is that it's
proved to be an occasional problem which won't
On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 09:22 -0500, MZMcBride wrote:
> Is there a policy or guideline about the level to which Wikimedia wikis care
> about data integrity? There are a few specific cases I'm talking about:
>
> * edits or other logged actions with a wrong timestamp;
> * incomplete user renames (cont
Hi.
Is there a policy or guideline about the level to which Wikimedia wikis care
about data integrity? There are a few specific cases I'm talking about:
* edits or other logged actions with a wrong timestamp;
* incomplete user renames (contributions split between two accounts);
* weird entries in
10 matches
Mail list logo
