I just moved all of page and subpages of Manual:Pywikipediabot to Manual:Pywikibot in mediawiki.org
Please help us on updating documentations
Cheers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
You need the hold the promise you have given in [1]: "I will update documentation in mediawiki.org after merge"
[1] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/84006/
You (still) have to update 'externals/__init__.py' and/or 'externals/README' in order to keep everything consistent and documented.
But I am wondering WHY we have a "review" process when we ignore issues mentioned there? This is just one example, I encountered several others users doing the same since change to GIT (myself included honestly)... And I am wondering that nobody seams to have a problem with that...?!?
Greetings DrTrigon
On 20.09.2013 12:45, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
I just moved all of page and subpages of Manual:Pywikipediabot to Manual:Pywikibot in mediawiki.org http://mediawiki.org
Please help us on updating documentations
Cheers -- Amir
_______________________________________________ Pywikipedia-l mailing list Pywikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/pywikipedia-l
----- Original Nachricht ---- Von: "Dr. Trigon" dr.trigon@surfeu.ch An: pywikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Datum: 21.09.2013 09:59 Betreff: Re: [Pywikipedia-l] Pywikibot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 You need the hold the promise you have given in [1]: "I will update documentation in mediawiki.org after merge"
[1] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/84006/
You (still) have to update 'externals/__init__.py' and/or 'externals/README' in order to keep everything consistent and documented.
But I am wondering WHY we have a "review" process when we ignore issues mentioned there? This is just one example, I encountered several others users doing the same since change to GIT (myself included honestly)... And I am wondering that nobody seams to have a problem with that...?!?
an example for review process: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/81959/ https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/81954/ https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/81902/ https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/81963/ https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/84227/ https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/84350/ https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/84532/
Where is the point?
Anyway I agree with self reviewing trivial changes (only). When I reviewed #84006 there was neighter a veto (CR-2) nor a CR-1 approval request. And I missinterpreted your V+1 as aggreement with that commit. There was a reminder for the documentation and btw it was unclear for me what has to be documented for binding BD to the framework and at least no file of that merged changes where affected by the doc request. It was easyer to me to merge it in a second commit which is now done by DrTrigon [1] (thanks).
xqt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 21.09.2013 14:39, info@gno.de wrote:
----- Original Nachricht ---- Von: "Dr. Trigon" dr.trigon@surfeu.ch An: pywikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Datum: 21.09.2013 09:59 Betreff: Re: [Pywikipedia-l] Pywikibot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 You need the hold the promise you have given in [1]: "I will update documentation in mediawiki.org after merge"
[1] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/84006/
You (still) have to update 'externals/__init__.py' and/or 'externals/README' in order to keep everything consistent and documented.
But I am wondering WHY we have a "review" process when we ignore issues mentioned there? This is just one example, I encountered several others users doing the same since change to GIT (myself included honestly)... And I am wondering that nobody seams to have a problem with that...?!?
an example for review process: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/81959/ https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/81954/ https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/81902/ https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/81963/ https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/84227/ https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/84350/ https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/84532/
Where is the point?
Anyway I agree with self reviewing trivial changes (only). When I reviewed #84006 there was neighter a veto (CR-2) nor a CR-1 approval request. And I missinterpreted your V+1 as aggreement with that commit. There was a reminder for the documentation and btw it was unclear for me what has to be documented for binding BD to the framework and at least no file of that merged changes where affected by the doc request. It was easyer to me to merge it in a second commit which is now done by DrTrigon [1] (thanks).
This was just the commit that triggered my mail, as mentioned I encountered that several times before already... To some extend I might be a little bit dissapointed to the way how the review process works, most because of the missing 'fixme' mentioned by someone else already earlier. Finally you are right; the merged changes did not affect the files in the later change and BS had to be dropped in somehow fast since ... well I assume everybody was waiting for it to appear again. ;) Yes, my +1 was missunderstanding... I agree. May be we should agree on something like; merge only after 3 independent +1 and no -1 ... or something like this?
Thanks and Greetings DrTrigon