Hi all,
here's our weekly list of Wikidata review items. Due to the hands-on meeting last week we refrained from sending it earlier. Now that most should be back home, I wanted to give an overview of the open items before our telco tomorrow.
* ContentHandler. This one is seriously blocking us now, and we would need to get it reviewed. It is our highest priority right now. The review was promised for this week. We are eagerly awaiting the review and further input. Here's the bug: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38622
* Sites. The RFC seems to be stable: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/New_sites_system Chad was reminded one and half weeks ago to take a look, and since no further input has come in we assume that it is acceptable, which is why we started with the implementation work. Here's the link to the patch: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/23528/
* jQuery table sorting improvements. This improves the UI on initial display of a sorted table. There has been some comments and updates, thanks to Krinkle for the review and comments. The work is ongoing here, the ball is in our courtyard, we are working on the new patchset: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/22562/
* Towards nested transactions (2): https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/21584/ open with comments from Aaron Schulz.
Got merged since last mail: * userWasLastToEdit improvement. https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/22049/ Yay! Thanks to Demon. * Towards nested transactions (1): https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/21582/ got merged! Yay! Thanks to Aaron Schulz.
Thanks for everyone, especially to Demon, Krinkle, The DJ, Dantman, Matmarex, and Aaron Schulz for reviewing, and Rob, Tim, and Chad who participated in the phone conference last week.
It would be crucial to get the first two items off this list as soon as possible.
Cheers, Denny
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:53:54 -0700, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hi all,
here's our weekly list of Wikidata review items. Due to the hands-on meeting last week we refrained from sending it earlier. Now that most should be back home, I wanted to give an overview of the open items before our telco tomorrow.
- ContentHandler. This one is seriously blocking us now, and we would
need to get it reviewed. It is our highest priority right now. The review was promised for this week. We are eagerly awaiting the review and further input. Here's the bug: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38622
- Sites. The RFC seems to be stable:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/New_sites_system Chad was reminded one and half weeks ago to take a look, and since no further input has come in we assume that it is acceptable, which is why we started with the implementation work. Here's the link to the patch: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/23528/
The Sitelinks topic still needs discussion.
- jQuery table sorting improvements. This improves the UI on initial
display of a sorted table. There has been some comments and updates, thanks to Krinkle for the review and comments. The work is ongoing here, the ball is in our courtyard, we are working on the new patchset: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/22562/
- Towards nested transactions (2):
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/21584/ open with comments from Aaron Schulz.
Got merged since last mail:
- userWasLastToEdit improvement.
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/22049/ Yay! Thanks to Demon.
- Towards nested transactions (1):
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/21582/ got merged! Yay! Thanks to Aaron Schulz.
Thanks for everyone, especially to Demon, Krinkle, The DJ, Dantman, Matmarex, and Aaron Schulz for reviewing, and Rob, Tim, and Chad who participated in the phone conference last week.
It would be crucial to get the first two items off this list as soon as possible.
Cheers, Denny
Daniel,
regarding the sites management:
Since the last activity on the discussion page was from August 26, and the last substantial change to the RFC itself was from August 21, and the patch set has been there since September 12 -- without any comments, by the way -- I hope you find it understandable when I express a certain frustration with a comment like "it still needs discussion".
This change to the code is blocking us. If it needs discussion, then please discuss it. But being silent for several weeks, even a month, while people are working on this and spending resources at this, and then suddenly saying "oh wait, I think it still needs some discussion" is not very respectful of the work done by others. We have invited for discussion several times, and you have been one of the most active in the discussions.
So, please, at least be as helpful as to say what imperfection in the current state of affairs irks you, so that we can discuss them and work on them. Otherwise your comment merely leads to an increase in frustration, and I do not see how it helps us improve MediaWiki.
Sorry if the words are received as harsh, Denny
2012/9/20 Daniel Friesen daniel@nadir-seen-fire.com:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:53:54 -0700, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hi all,
here's our weekly list of Wikidata review items. Due to the hands-on meeting last week we refrained from sending it earlier. Now that most should be back home, I wanted to give an overview of the open items before our telco tomorrow.
- ContentHandler. This one is seriously blocking us now, and we would
need to get it reviewed. It is our highest priority right now. The review was promised for this week. We are eagerly awaiting the review and further input. Here's the bug: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38622
- Sites. The RFC seems to be stable:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/New_sites_system Chad was reminded one and half weeks ago to take a look, and since no further input has come in we assume that it is acceptable, which is why we started with the implementation work. Here's the link to the patch: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/23528/
The Sitelinks topic still needs discussion.
- jQuery table sorting improvements. This improves the UI on initial
display of a sorted table. There has been some comments and updates, thanks to Krinkle for the review and comments. The work is ongoing here, the ball is in our courtyard, we are working on the new patchset: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/22562/
- Towards nested transactions (2):
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/21584/ open with comments from Aaron Schulz.
Got merged since last mail:
- userWasLastToEdit improvement.
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/22049/ Yay! Thanks to Demon.
- Towards nested transactions (1):
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/21582/ got merged! Yay! Thanks to Aaron Schulz.
Thanks for everyone, especially to Demon, Krinkle, The DJ, Dantman, Matmarex, and Aaron Schulz for reviewing, and Rob, Tim, and Chad who participated in the phone conference last week.
It would be crucial to get the first two items off this list as soon as possible.
Cheers, Denny
-- ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 01:26:43 -0700, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de wrote:
Daniel,
regarding the sites management:
Since the last activity on the discussion page was from August 26, and the last substantial change to the RFC itself was from August 21, and the patch set has been there since September 12 -- without any comments, by the way -- I hope you find it understandable when I express a certain frustration with a comment like "it still needs discussion".
This change to the code is blocking us. If it needs discussion, then please discuss it. But being silent for several weeks, even a month, while people are working on this and spending resources at this, and then suddenly saying "oh wait, I think it still needs some discussion" is not very respectful of the work done by others. We have invited for discussion several times, and you have been one of the most active in the discussions.
I already started the discussion ages ago. No-one replied.
So, please, at least be as helpful as to say what imperfection in the current state of affairs irks you, so that we can discuss them and work on them. Otherwise your comment merely leads to an increase in frustration, and I do not see how it helps us improve MediaWiki.
Sorry if the words are received as harsh, Denny
2012/9/20 Daniel Friesen daniel@nadir-seen-fire.com:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:53:54 -0700, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hi all,
here's our weekly list of Wikidata review items. Due to the hands-on meeting last week we refrained from sending it earlier. Now that most should be back home, I wanted to give an overview of the open items before our telco tomorrow.
- ContentHandler. This one is seriously blocking us now, and we would
need to get it reviewed. It is our highest priority right now. The review was promised for this week. We are eagerly awaiting the review and further input. Here's the bug: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38622
- Sites. The RFC seems to be stable:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/New_sites_system Chad was reminded one and half weeks ago to take a look, and since no further input has come in we assume that it is acceptable, which is why we started with the implementation work. Here's the link to the patch: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/23528/
The Sitelinks topic still needs discussion.
- jQuery table sorting improvements. This improves the UI on initial
display of a sorted table. There has been some comments and updates, thanks to Krinkle for the review and comments. The work is ongoing here, the ball is in our courtyard, we are working on the new patchset: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/22562/
- Towards nested transactions (2):
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/21584/ open with comments from Aaron Schulz.
Got merged since last mail:
- userWasLastToEdit improvement.
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/22049/ Yay! Thanks to Demon.
- Towards nested transactions (1):
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/21582/ got merged! Yay! Thanks to Aaron Schulz.
Thanks for everyone, especially to Demon, Krinkle, The DJ, Dantman, Matmarex, and Aaron Schulz for reviewing, and Rob, Tim, and Chad who participated in the phone conference last week.
It would be crucial to get the first two items off this list as soon as possible.
Cheers, Denny
-- ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
2012/9/20 Daniel Friesen daniel@nadir-seen-fire.com:
I already started the discussion ages ago. No-one replied.
Daniel,
can you please point to the discussion that you started where no one replied? As far as I can tell, I can find discussions that you started on-wiki, on this mailing list, and I see comments by you on Gerrit. I found these discussions enlightening and I think they improved the design and the code - but in all these discussion threads there have been replies.
If there are discussions you have started where no one replied, can you please provide links to them? I cannot find them.
Denny
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 05:54:02 -0700, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de wrote:
2012/9/20 Daniel Friesen daniel@nadir-seen-fire.com:
I already started the discussion ages ago. No-one replied.
Daniel,
can you please point to the discussion that you started where no one replied? As far as I can tell, I can find discussions that you started on-wiki, on this mailing list, and I see comments by you on Gerrit. I found these discussions enlightening and I think they improved the design and the code - but in all these discussion threads there have been replies.
If there are discussions you have started where no one replied, can you please provide links to them? I cannot find them.
Denny
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Thread:Talk:Requests_for_comment/New_sites_sy...
Daniel,
sorry for the previous tone of my answer. Indeed I mixed up the Sites management RFC, that I was discussing, and your proposal to change the Sitelinks table. Although they are related, the former does not depend on the latter.
Whereas I see that changing it both in one go might have advantages, in order to proceed with the site management being reviewed, merged and implemented in a timely manner I would suggest that we keep them separated.
The Sitelinks discussion you have started has indeed not received answers as fat as I can tell. I suggest that this might be due to it being currently a sub-part of the sites management topic. I would suggest that this gets started in its own RFC, what do you think?
Cheers, Denny
2012/9/21 Daniel Friesen daniel@nadir-seen-fire.com:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 05:54:02 -0700, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de wrote:
2012/9/20 Daniel Friesen daniel@nadir-seen-fire.com:
I already started the discussion ages ago. No-one replied.
Daniel,
can you please point to the discussion that you started where no one replied? As far as I can tell, I can find discussions that you started on-wiki, on this mailing list, and I see comments by you on Gerrit. I found these discussions enlightening and I think they improved the design and the code - but in all these discussion threads there have been replies.
If there are discussions you have started where no one replied, can you please provide links to them? I cannot find them.
Denny
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Thread:Talk:Requests_for_comment/New_sites_sy...
-- ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 21.09.2012 14:07, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
Daniel,
sorry for the previous tone of my answer. Indeed I mixed up the Sites management RFC, that I was discussing, and your proposal to change the Sitelinks table. Although they are related, the former does not depend on the latter.
Whereas I see that changing it both in one go might have advantages, in order to proceed with the site management being reviewed, merged and implemented in a timely manner I would suggest that we keep them separated.
The Sitelinks discussion you have started has indeed not received answers as fat as I can tell. I suggest that this might be due to it being currently a sub-part of the sites management topic. I would suggest that this gets started in its own RFC, what do you think?
I fully agree, especially since the new sites stuff does not immediately replace the old interwiki table. It will at some point, I hope, but the current proposal does not cover this.
-- daniel
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:07:31 -0700, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de wrote:
Daniel,
sorry for the previous tone of my answer. Indeed I mixed up the Sites management RFC, that I was discussing, and your proposal to change the Sitelinks table. Although they are related, the former does not depend on the latter.
Whereas I see that changing it both in one go might have advantages, in order to proceed with the site management being reviewed, merged and implemented in a timely manner I would suggest that we keep them separated.
The Sitelinks discussion you have started has indeed not received answers as fat as I can tell. I suggest that this might be due to it being currently a sub-part of the sites management topic. I would suggest that this gets started in its own RFC, what do you think?
It may not be part of the portion of what you're implementing right now but it is part of the RFC. The RFC's goal is the complete replacement of interwiki links with a sites system and intefaces/apis to interact with it.
Cheers, Denny
2012/9/21 Daniel Friesen daniel@nadir-seen-fire.com:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 05:54:02 -0700, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de wrote:
2012/9/20 Daniel Friesen daniel@nadir-seen-fire.com:
I already started the discussion ages ago. No-one replied.
Daniel,
can you please point to the discussion that you started where no one replied? As far as I can tell, I can find discussions that you started on-wiki, on this mailing list, and I see comments by you on Gerrit. I found these discussions enlightening and I think they improved the design and the code - but in all these discussion threads there have been replies.
If there are discussions you have started where no one replied, can you please provide links to them? I cannot find them.
Denny
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Thread:Talk:Requests_for_comment/New_sites_sy...
-- ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de wrote:
- Sites. The RFC seems to be stable:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/New_sites_system Chad was reminded one and half weeks ago to take a look, and since no further input has come in we assume that it is acceptable, which is why we started with the implementation work. Here's the link to the patch: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/23528/
The RFC I pretty much agree with in full. It fixes a lot of long-standing issues with our current interwiki/languagelink format and makes it more future-proof to later things we may want to tack on.
I have not reviewed the patch in-depth yet because it's almost 2,900 lines of text and I just haven't found the time.
-Chad
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org