On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Gergo Tisza <gtisza(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
You can load the file description page with an
action=purge URL parameter,
that will delete all thumbnails of that image and they will have to be
re-rendered the next time you look at them.
(Or you can just change 300px to 299px which is probably not used anywhere
so all images will have to be rendered when you first open them.)
I think the purge option is better. Pushing that change will take time
and add unnecessary load on the servers. I could make my observations
by purging and testing. Thanks!
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Quiddity <pandiculation(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You and Jorm and I had discussed using 220px. You
mentioned this patch's
comment as the reason to use 300px
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/109878/22/js/popup.js
What dark magic was used to obtain this information? Teach me, master.
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Quiddity <pandiculation(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Unless/until the vast majority of our images are
thumbnailed at 300px, I'd
recommend using 220px in Hovercards.
220px would become too small. We are maintaining a width and font size
to improve readability. As more Hovercards are shown and more images
get cached we'll face this less often, thus, I am not too worried.
It turned out that bug was a false alarm, the image didn't show up
even after the delay due to another bug [1]. Thanks everyone for your
help, this will help me test the performance of the extension.
--prtksxna
[1]
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/63207