Simetrical wrote:
> On 11/22/07, Platonides wrote:
>> Aye, but the "carefully maintaned" stable toolserver tools should be
>> efficient, too (if the task can be efficiently done, of course, the
>> criteria for inclusion would be greater).
>
> In which case they should be moved to the main servers, and in
> particular have access to the same (guaranteed non-lagged) databases
> as everything else.
The tools should be high-quality qualifying to be moved to the main
server ;)
While these tools could get a server on the main cluster, i don't know
if that would slow changing them, and the sysadmisn would still want to
review it (which is slow).
>> In fact, i'm for rewriting some of these tools in the moving.
>> Why? Current tools are one man's work. They work, but can be a bit
>> {{esoteric}}, with hacks added on backend changes and only the author
>> fully knows it.
>> By rewriting them between all the maintaners, they all know the baby
>> since birth. It's easier knowing a check-usage when you have seen the
>> functions grow from one sql query, than starting with a teenager.
>
> In that case, they should be rewritten as proper MediaWiki extensions
> (if appropriate), and proposed for enabling as such on the application
> servers.
EditCounter could be quite pluggable (in fact, a basic one was added to
Special:Preferences) but how would you add big ones like CheckUsage? As
a special page with hardcoded db's to check? Not happening soon.
_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list
Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
