The objective is to get buy in and comments on what is proposed.
If it was as simple as adding a few fonts and other dependecies, would the
previous iteraton of the software have remained broken?
Sadly, it is a wee bit more complicated.
Thanks,
GerardM
Op 17 nov. 2013 15:30 schreef "Jere
On Nov 17, 2013 9:17 AM, "Gerard Meijssen"
wrote:
> The current PDF support is broken. It does not support all the languages
we
> support. I do not see that this an explicit requirement.
That may effect dependencies (fonts/libs/etc.) but otherwise I think is
irrelevant to this thread.
Please com
Hoi,
The current PDF support is broken. It does not support all the languages we
support. I do not see that this an explicit requirement.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 14 November 2013 00:02, Matthew Walker wrote:
> Hey,
>
> For the new renderer backend for the Collections Extension we've come up
> w
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> And I'll add that there's another axis: gwicke (and others?) have been
> arguing for a broader "collection of services" architecture for mw. This
> would decouple some of the installability issues. Even if PDF rendering
> (say) was a hug
And I'll add that there's another axis: gwicke (and others?) have been
arguing for a broader "collection of services" architecture for mw. This
would decouple some of the installability issues. Even if PDF rendering
(say) was a huge monster, Jimmy MediaWiki might still be able to simply
install t
On 11/13/2013 08:18 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Matthew replied on-wiki, but I'll add that there's a dream within the
> MediaWiki tech community to be able to simply do "apt-get mediawiki" or
> similar on a spun-up virtual machine and everything will quickly and
> easily be set up for you.
>
> There's
Marcin Cieslak wrote:
>>> Matthew Walker wrote:
>> [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/PDF_rendering/Architecture
>
>I think requirement number one is that Jimmy the casual MediaWiki
>user would be able to install his own renederer without replicating
>WMF infrastructure:
Matthew replied on-wiki,
>> Matthew Walker wrote:
> [1 ]https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/PDF_rendering/Architecture
I think requirement number one is that Jimmy the casual MediaWiki
user would be able to install his own renederer without replicating
WMF infrastructure:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:PDF_rendering/Arc
Yeah we've been running 0.10 in development for Parsoid for a while. So no
problems expected... other than unpredictable load gremlins or some such.
It sounds like gwicke's plan is to ramp up the load gradually to try to
head that off.
--scott
On Nov 13, 2013 6:02 PM, "Matthew Walker" wrote:
>
As a followup, it's worth talking about puppetization and how we're going
to accomplish that.
* Node.JS itself should be installable via apt package (we'll have to do a
custom package so that we get Node v10)
* Node dependencies will be all 'npm install'ed into a node_modules
submodule of the main
Hey,
For the new renderer backend for the Collections Extension we've come up
with a tentative architecture that we would like operations buy in on. The
living document is here [1]. It's worth saying explicitly that whatever
setup we use must be able to handle the greater than 150k requests a day
11 matches
Mail list logo
