I know it has been annoying a couple of people other than me, so now that I've learned how to make it work I'll share the knowledge here.
tl;dr: Star the repositories. No, seriously. (And yes, you need to star each extension repo separately.)
(Is there a place on mw.org to put this tidbit on?)
------- Forwarded message -------
From: "Brian Levine" <support(a)github.com> (GitHub Staff)
To: matma.rex(a)gmail.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: Commits in mirrored repositories not showing up on my profile
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 06:47:19 +0200
Hi Bartosz
In order to link your commits to your GitHub account, you need to have some association with the repository other than authoring the commit. Usually, having push access gives you that connection. In this case, you don't have push permission, so we don't link you to the commit.
The easy solution here is for you to star the repository. If you star it - along with the other repositories that are giving you this problem - we'll see that you're connected to the repository and you'll get contribution credit for those commits.
Cheers
Brian
--
Matma Rex
We just released a new version of Research:FAQ on Meta [1], significantly
expanded and updated, to make our processes at WMF more transparent and to
meet an explicit FDC request to clarify the role and responsibilities of
individual teams involved in research across the organization.
The previous version – written from the perspective of the (now inactive)
Research:Committee, and mostly obsolete since the release of WMF's open
access policy [2] – can still be found here [3].
Comments and bold edits to the new version of the document are welcome. For
any question or concern, you can drop me a line or ping my username on-wiki.
Thanks,
Dario
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:FAQ
[2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Open_access_policy
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:FAQ&oldid=15176953
*Dario Taraborelli *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
<http://twitter.com/readermeter>
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:36 PM, David Strine <dstrine(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> We will be holding this brownbag in 25 minutes. The Bluejeans link has
> changed:
>
> https://bluejeans.com/396234560
I'm not familiar with bluejeans and maybe have missed a transition
because I wasn't paying enough attention. is this some kind of
experiment? have all meetings transitioned to this service?
anyway, my immediate question at the moment is how do you join without
sharing your microphone and camera?
am I correct thinking that this is an entirely proprietary stack
that's neither gratis nor libre and has no on-premise (not cloud)
hosting option? are we paying for this?
-Jeremy
As of 950cf6016c, the mediawiki/core repo was updated to use DB_REPLICA
instead of DB_SLAVE, with the old constant left as an alias. This is part
of a string of commits that cleaned up the mixed use of "replica" and
"slave" by sticking to the former. Extensions have not been mass
converted. Please use the new constant in any new code.
The word "replica" is a bit more indicative of a broader range of DB
setups*, is used by a range of large companies**, and is more neutral in
connotations.
Drupal and Django made similar updates (even replacing the word "master"):
* https://www.drupal.org/node/2275877
* https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692/files &
https://github.com/django/django/commit/beec05686ccc3bee8461f9a5a02c607a023…
I don't plan on doing anything to DB_MASTER, since it seems fine by itself,
like "master copy", "master tape" or "master key". This is analogous to a
master RDBMs database. Even multi-master RDBMs systems tend to have a
stronger consistency than classic RDBMs slave servers, and present
themselves as one logical "master" or "authoritative" copy. Even in it's
personified form, a "master" database can readily be thought of as
analogous to "controller", "governer", "ruler", lead "officer", or such.**
* clusters using two-phase commit, galera using certification-based
replication, multi-master circular replication, ect...
**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Appropriateness_of_…
***
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium…
--
-Aaron
O'Reilly just published some of their popular books for free, either as
part of open access movement or some kind of marketing (or both). I find
them useful to Wikimedia developers. It supports several types of e-books
so you can read it in your kindle, etc.:
* Performance, Operations, Release engineering:
http://www.oreilly.com/webops-perf/free/
* Data, AI, Analytics: http://www.oreilly.com/data/free/
* Programming, architecture, Open source culture:
http://www.oreilly.com/programming/free/
* Security: http://www.oreilly.com/security/free/
* Web platform, design: http://www.oreilly.com/web-platform/free/
This is a rather unusual type of email so I wasn't sure I was doing the
right thing so I just sent it to wikitech-l. Please spread the word if you
think it's okay or tell me if you think not. Thanks.
Best
The Parsing team at the Wikimedia Foundation that develops the Parsoid
service is deprecating support for node 0.1x. Parsoid is the service
that powers VisualEditor, Content Translation, and Flow. If you don't
run a MediaWiki install that uses VisualEditor, then this announcement
does not affect you.
Node 0.10 has reached end of life on October 31st, 2016 [1] and node
0.12 is scheduled to reach end of life December 31st, 2016 [1].
Yesterday, we released a 0.6.1 debian package [2] and a 0.6.1 npm
version of Parsoid [3]. This will be the last release that will have
node 0.1x support. We'll continue to provide any necessary critical bug
fixes and security fixes for the 0.6.1 release till March 31st 2017 and
will be completely dropping support for all node versions before node
v4.x starting April 2017.
If you are running a Parsoid service on your wiki and are still using
node 0.1x, please upgrade your node version by April 2017. The Wikimedia
cluster runs node v4.6 right now and will soon be upgraded to node v6.x
[4]. Parsoid has been tested with node 0.1x, node v4.x and node v6.x and
works with all these versions. However, we are dropping support for node
0.1x right away from the master branch of Parsoid. Going forward, the
Parsoid codebase will adopt ES6 features available in node v4.x and
higher which aren't supported in node 0.1x and will constitute a
breaking change.
Subramanya Sastry (Subbu),
Technical Lead and Manager,
Parsing Team,
Wikimedia Foundation.
[1] Node.js Long Term Support schedule @ https://github.com/nodejs/LTS
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsoid/Releases
[3] https://www.npmjs.com/package/parsoid
[4] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T149331
Hi all!
This is a Final Call for Comments on the RFC on Content Model Storage [1][2]. If
no new and serious objections are raised within a week, the Architecture
Committee will approve this RFC and drive its implementation.
The RFC on Content Model Storage was originally approved in 2015, but was then
postponed in favor of another RFC, which proposes to create a separate content
meta-data table [3] as part of the move towards multi-content revisions (MCR) [4].
However, MCR in turn got stuck on database performance concerns. So we now
propose to go ahead with implementing the original RFC. The idea is to assign a
number to every content model (and content format), and then use these numbers
to refer to the models and formats in the database, instead of repeating the
same string millions of times (which is my fault btw, sorry about that).
Since the original RFC was already approved, and the situation does not seem to
have changed since then, we see no need for another round of discussions. If
nobody raises any new and serious objections within a week, this should be good
to go.
Cheers,
Daniel
[1] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105652
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Content_model_storage
[3] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T142980
[4]
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multi-Content_Revisions/Content_Meta-Data#Da…
--
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.