hello,
1: JIRA and FishEye have moved to: - https://jira.ts.wikimedia.org/ - https://fisheye.ts.wikimedia.org/
2: as an experiment i've set up a Confluence install at http://confluence.ts.wikimedia.org (SSL also available). i don't know if anyone's interested in using this for their content... it has a few nice features.
i've also thought about setting up a MediaWiki. we already have content on meta, but maybe people would like a dedicated space with a familiar wiki instead. comments?
- river.
River Tarnell writes:
i've also thought about setting up a MediaWiki. we already have content on meta, but maybe people would like a dedicated space with a familiar wiki instead. comments?
I think MediaWiki is much better than Confluence. Of course, toolserver wiki will be nice because we will be able to publish more info about our tools.
--VasilievVV.
On 18.10.2007 04:08:10, River Tarnell wrote:
i've also thought about setting up a MediaWiki. we already have content on meta, but maybe people would like a dedicated space with a familiar wiki instead. comments?
We've been thinking of MediaWiki as the toolserver homepage (http://tools.wikimedia.de) months ago with rob or greg iirc, and we've come to the conclusion that we'd better want a static page (as the current one), due to aspects like meta having a better availibilty and such. I can't see what a MediaWiki could do other than being a homepage?
(Not that I'm against setting up a wiki, just curious to know what it shall do ;))
Leon
On Thursday 18 October 2007 10:18, Leon Weber wrote:
We've been thinking of MediaWiki as the toolserver homepage (http://tools.wikimedia.de) months ago with rob or greg iirc, and we've come to the conclusion that we'd better want a static page (as the current one), due to aspects like meta having a better availibilty and such. I can't see what a MediaWiki could do other than being a homepage?
I propose we start building a code wiki, which would be just like wiki, but for code :) This would also solve the problem of people leaving their needed tools unupdated.
Well, shouldn't people rather put their codes into SVN?
Danny B.
------------ Původní zpráva ------------ Od: Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu Předmět: Re: [Toolserver-l] confluence, mediawiki; infra.ts URLs changed Datum: 18.10.2007 15:54:42
On Thursday 18 October 2007 10:18, Leon Weber wrote:
We've been thinking of MediaWiki as the toolserver homepage (http://tools.wikimedia.de) months ago with rob or greg iirc, and we've come to the conclusion that we'd better want a static page (as the current one), due to aspects like meta having a better availibilty and such. I can't see what a MediaWiki could do other than being a homepage?
I propose we start building a code wiki, which would be just like wiki, but for code :) This would also solve the problem of people leaving their needed tools unupdated.
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
On Thursday 18 October 2007 17:10, Danny B. wrote:
Well, shouldn't people rather put their codes into SVN?
Yes, but the code in SVN isn't live. There is still no way to change an existing tool (either to improve it or because the author left) except by taking its code and creating a same new tool somewhere else.
As a practical example, I'd like to be able to fix http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/grep but it seems that I will have to make my own tool for the purpose.
------------ Původní zpráva ------------ Od: Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu Předmět: Re: [Toolserver-l] confluence, mediawiki; infra.ts URLs changed Datum: 18.10.2007 15:54:42
On Thursday 18 October 2007 10:18, Leon Weber wrote:
We've been thinking of MediaWiki as the toolserver homepage (http://tools.wikimedia.de) months ago with rob or greg iirc, and we've come to the conclusion that we'd better want a static page (as the current one), due to aspects like meta having a better availibilty and such. I can't see what a MediaWiki could do other than being a homepage?
I propose we start building a code wiki, which would be just like wiki, but for code :) This would also solve the problem of people leaving their needed tools unupdated.
As a practical example, I'd like to be able to fix http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/grep but it seems that I will have to make my own tool for the purpose.
Or you could copy-and-adapt. Letting everyone edit everyones tools is - from a security perspective - just plain stupid. The owner of a tool is responsible for it, not some 'list of persons'. I'd rather suggest pushing people to use SVN than to put source code on a wiki.
--valhallasw
On Friday 19 October 2007 00:00, Merlijn van Deen wrote:
As a practical example, I'd like to be able to fix http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/grep but it seems that I will have to make my own tool for the purpose.
Or you could copy-and-adapt. Letting everyone edit everyones tools is - from a security perspective - just plain stupid. The owner of a tool is responsible for it, not some 'list of persons'. I'd rather suggest pushing people to use SVN than to put source code on a wiki.
I could copy-and-adapt, and then everyone who relies on this tool (including other tools) would have to adapt to my copy.
Of course, if such a wiki would be made, only select people would be able to edit the code, and if there is a security breach, you would be able to see who did it, like now.
On 10/19/07, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
On Friday 19 October 2007 00:00, Merlijn van Deen wrote:
As a practical example, I'd like to be able to fix http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/grep but it seems that I will have to make my own tool for the purpose.
Or you could copy-and-adapt. Letting everyone edit everyones tools is - from a security perspective - just plain stupid. The owner of a tool is responsible for it, not some 'list of persons'. I'd rather suggest pushing people to use SVN than to put source code on a wiki.
I could copy-and-adapt, and then everyone who relies on this tool (including other tools) would have to adapt to my copy.
Of course, if such a wiki would be made, only select people would be able to edit the code, and if there is a security breach, you would be able to see who did it, like now.
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Serious programming in a browser is a pain in the arse. Imho.
Bryan
On 10/19/07, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Of course, if such a wiki would be made, only select people would be able to edit the code, and if there is a security breach, you would be able to see who did it, like now.
Or how about we just say make an SVN repo that all toolserver people have access to, and get everyone to have a little world-executable script that synchronizes their tool to the latest SVN version? SVN is generally more convenient for code storage than a wiki would be.
On 10/19/07, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/19/07, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Of course, if such a wiki would be made, only select people would be able to edit the code, and if there is a security breach, you would be able to see who did it, like now.
Or how about we just say make an SVN repo that all toolserver people have access to, and get everyone to have a little world-executable script that synchronizes their tool to the latest SVN version? SVN is generally more convenient for code storage than a wiki would be.
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
I like that idea.
Bryan
Simetrical writes:
On 10/19/07, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Of course, if such a wiki would be made, only select people would be able to edit the code, and if there is a security breach, you would be able to see who did it, like now.
Or how about we just say make an SVN repo that all toolserver people have access to, and get everyone to have a little world-executable script that synchronizes their tool to the latest SVN version? SVN is generally more convenient for code storage than a wiki would be.
Why do we need script, it's a simple command: svn cat file:///home/username/subversion/filename.php > ~/public_html/filename.php --VasilievVV
On 10/20/07, VasilievVV vasilvv@gmail.com wrote:
Simetrical writes:
On 10/19/07, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Of course, if such a wiki would be made, only select people would be able to edit the code, and if there is a security breach, you would be able to see who did it, like now.
Or how about we just say make an SVN repo that all toolserver people have access to, and get everyone to have a little world-executable script that synchronizes their tool to the latest SVN version? SVN is generally more convenient for code storage than a wiki would be.
Why do we need script, it's a simple command: svn cat file:///home/username/subversion/filename.php > ~/public_html/filename.php --VasilievVV
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
I would prefer not to give direct write access to my files. A suid script would solve that, since, if properly programmed, would allow only updates from svn, tracking all changes.
Bryan
Madman writes:
Or just svn co in the appropriate directory. No?
-Madman
Simetrical writes: Why do we need script, it's a simple command: svn cat file:///home/username/subversion/filename.php > ~/public_html/filename.php --VasilievVV
Probably no, because svn co works only with directory and creates .svn directory --VasilievVV
On 10/20/07, VasilievVV vasilvv@gmail.com wrote:
Simetrical writes:
Or how about we just say make an SVN repo that all toolserver people have access to, and get everyone to have a little world-executable script that synchronizes their tool to the latest SVN version? SVN is generally more convenient for code storage than a wiki would be.
Why do we need script, it's a simple command: svn cat file:///home/username/subversion/filename.php > ~/public_html/filename.php
Because that sort of defeats the purpose of "all changes are transparently tracked and revertable", and makes it more like "anyone on the toolserver can randomly and semi-untrackably change anyone's script to do anything at any time".
On 10/20/07, Madman madman@ferretproductions.com wrote:
Or just svn co in the appropriate directory. No?
That's somewhat difficult without write access. See above.
On 10/21/07, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/07, VasilievVV vasilvv@gmail.com wrote:
Simetrical writes:
Or how about we just say make an SVN repo that all toolserver people have access to, and get everyone to have a little world-executable script that synchronizes their tool to the latest SVN version? SVN is generally more convenient for code storage than a wiki would be.
Why do we need script, it's a simple command: svn cat file:///home/username/subversion/filename.php > ~/public_html/filename.php
Because that sort of defeats the purpose of "all changes are transparently tracked and revertable", and makes it more like "anyone on the toolserver can randomly and semi-untrackably change anyone's script to do anything at any time".
On 10/20/07, Madman madman@ferretproductions.com wrote:
Or just svn co in the appropriate directory. No?
That's somewhat difficult without write access. See above.
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Hm. If we have a shared svn repository that does also mean that everybody should have write access and thus be able to delete/overwrite the whole repository?
On 10/21/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. If we have a shared svn repository that does also mean that everybody should have write access and thus be able to delete/overwrite the whole repository?
Presumably, yes. They can then be reverted and have their toolserver access taken away. We aren't dealing with hospital life-support software here, right?
If it's a concern, you could require that it be toolserver roots that do the code update, but that's probably too much of a burden. Toolserver users are moderately trusted anyway, and toolserver tools are typically not nearly as stability-critical as the Wikimedia sites themselves.
Simetrical:
On 10/21/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. If we have a shared svn repository that does also mean that everybody should have write access and thus be able to delete/overwrite the whole repository?
Presumably, yes.
i don't like this at all. such edits can reflect badly on the user whose tools are being edited (if the edits are bad), and although users are trusted to a reasonable amount, that doesn't prevent well-meaning but incompetent users accidentally breaking other people's things.
generally, i think things under a particular user's account should only be modified by that user.
for a better solution to the problem of users leaving, see the stable server thread elsewhere on the list.
- river.
On 10/21/07, River Tarnell river@wikimedia.org wrote:
Simetrical:
On 10/21/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. If we have a shared svn repository that does also mean that everybody should have write access and thus be able to delete/overwrite the whole repository?
Presumably, yes.
i don't like this at all. such edits can reflect badly on the user whose tools are being edited (if the edits are bad), and although users are trusted to a reasonable amount, that doesn't prevent well-meaning but incompetent users accidentally breaking other people's things.
Excactly. I have been looking around in other user's code, and I can assure you that a lot of users do nothing to protect their passwords, sanitize their database inputs, etc. I personally would not want to have all users on the toolserver being able to write to my tools.
Bryan
On 10/21/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/21/07, River Tarnell river@wikimedia.org wrote:
i don't like this at all. such edits can reflect badly on the user whose tools are being edited (if the edits are bad), and although users are trusted to a reasonable amount, that doesn't prevent well-meaning but incompetent users accidentally breaking other people's things.
Excactly. I have been looking around in other user's code, and I can assure you that a lot of users do nothing to protect their passwords, sanitize their database inputs, etc. I personally would not want to have all users on the toolserver being able to write to my tools.
Not unless you disappear for a while and your tools break, that is? It's true, there's no reason at all to do this for actively maintained tools.
There's already a Botwiki; in fact my bot's code is there.
On 10/18/07, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
On Thursday 18 October 2007 10:18, Leon Weber wrote:
We've been thinking of MediaWiki as the toolserver homepage (http://tools.wikimedia.de) months ago with rob or greg iirc, and we've come to the conclusion that we'd better want a static page (as the current one), due to aspects like meta having a better availibilty and such. I can't see what a MediaWiki could do other than being a homepage?
I propose we start building a code wiki, which would be just like wiki, but for code :) This would also solve the problem of people leaving their needed tools unupdated.
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
i've also thought about setting up a MediaWiki. we already have content on meta, but maybe people would like a dedicated space with a familiar wiki instead. comments?
- river.
I've been calling for MediaWiki installation for ages.
I think every user on TS should have his own page available to have the possibility to describe his tools (much more flexible and systematically than by writing static pages) and talk pages to get some public feedback. (IMO the best configuration would be the configuration when TS users can edit all pages and non TS users only talk pages) IMO it's better to have feedback for tools on one place than spreaded across many wikis on user's pages. There should be also namespace Tool: to describe every single tool (people sometime don't remember who's the owner of the tool). Also the meta content should be moved. Plus many other reasons to start it. Got some more ideas to share if there would be interest on them...
I'm interested in / willing to take care about setting the wiki structure on it once installed.
Kind regards
Danny B.
Hello,
In general I am against a toolserver wiki because we will be spreading content further. Using meta makes more sense because that avoids having information more and more decentralised, and there really is no advantage to having its own wiki - the toolserver doesn't have that much on it.
Meta is designed for things like this, and I don't see why we can't have a toolserver category and fill it with pages.
Sean
On 18/10/2007, River Tarnell river@wikimedia.org wrote:
hello,
1: JIRA and FishEye have moved to:
2: as an experiment i've set up a Confluence install at http://confluence.ts.wikimedia.org (SSL also available). i don't know if anyone's interested in using this for their content... it has a few nice features.
i've also thought about setting up a MediaWiki. we already have content on meta, but maybe people would like a dedicated space with a familiar wiki instead. comments?
- river.
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org