Let's see what sorts of bugs crop up? In my (limited) experience, the most common issues are probably article content which renders poorly as a PDF for some reason. Those bugs aren't easy to fix in a bug day sprint, since they tend to crop up slowly over time as people use the service and collect lists of suboptimal pages. (And some of these issues might be eventually traced to Parsoid, and we know from experience that fixing those ends up being a gradual collaboration between authors and developers to determine whether the wikitext should be rewritten or the parser extended, etc.)
On the other hand, if our servers are crashing or the UI code is buggy, etc, then a bug day would probably be useful to squash those sorts of things. --scott On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Strainu <strain...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Brad, > > I'm wondering if it wouldn't make sense to have a dedicated bugday at > the end of the sprint? > > Strainu > > 2013/11/13 Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <bjor...@wikimedia.org>: > > Note these are my own thoughts and not anything representative of the > team. > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Strainu <strain...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> b. If the robots should _not_ be credited, how do we detect them? > >> Ideally, there should be an automatical way to do so, but according to > >> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bots, it only works for recent changes. > >> Less ideally, only users with "bot" at the end should be removed, in > >> order to keep users like > >> https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilizator:Vitalie_Ciubotaru (which is > >> not a robot, but has "bot" in the name) in the contributor list. > > > > Another way to exclude (most) bots would be to skip any user with the > > "bot" user right. Note though that this would still include edits by > > unflagged bots, or by bots that have since been decommissioned and the > > bot flag removed. > > > > Personally, though, I do agree that excluding any user with "bot" in > > the name (or even with a name ending in "bot") is a bad idea even if > > just applied to enwiki, and worse when applied to other wikis that may > > have different naming conventions. > > > >> . The idea is to decide if and how to credit: > >> a. vandals > >> b. reverters > >> c. contributors which had their valid contributions rephrased or > >> replaced from the article. > >> d. contributors with valid contributions but invalid names > > > > The hard part there is detecting these, particularly case (c). And > > even then, the article may still be based on the original work in a > > copyright sense even if no single word of the original edit remains. > > > > Then there's also the situation where A makes an edit that is > > partially useful and partially bad, B reverts, then C comes along and > > incorporates parts of C's edit. > > > > > > -- > > Brad Jorsch (Anomie) > > Software Engineer > > Wikimedia Foundation > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > -- (http://cscott.net) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
