Important notice: Brion totally rocks.
Images can now be undeleted...Yes, I said undeleted.
I'll be leading group worship at the Church of the Almighty Brion at 7PM UTC tomorrow.
Essjay
Excellent. Many thanks to Brion for implementing this much requested feature.
Erik
On 6/16/06, Essjay essjaywiki@gmail.com wrote:
Important notice: Brion totally rocks.
Images can now be undeleted...Yes, I said undeleted.
/me thought image deletions were permanent for disk-space reasons.
So can we see an image before undeleting it?
Tomer Chachamu wrote:
On 6/16/06, Essjay essjaywiki@gmail.com wrote:
Important notice: Brion totally rocks.
Images can now be undeleted...Yes, I said undeleted.
/me thought image deletions were permanent for disk-space reasons.
Yep. They can be previewed just like a deleted page can be.
Essjay
Tomer Chachamu wrote:
On 6/16/06, Essjay essjaywiki@gmail.com wrote:
Important notice: Brion totally rocks.
Images can now be undeleted...Yes, I said undeleted.
/me thought image deletions were permanent for disk-space reasons.
No.
So can we see an image before undeleting it?
Yes.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 17/06/06, Tomer Chachamu the.r3m0t@gmail.com wrote:
/me thought image deletions were permanent for disk-space reasons.
Why the hell does everybody seem to have thought that? There was never, as far as I am aware, any policy related to saving disk space that would cause that. It's simply that there was a lack of code until now. :)
Rob Church
It makes quite a bit of sense.
Say, for example, that 100 images are deleted daily from Wikimedia projects. If they are erased permanently, that would mean we saved at least a little bit of space, as opposed to keeping them around forever.
I don't know if we ever erased them permanently, though, and I also don't know with wham frequency images are deleted, and I'm also pretty sure disco space was never a real problem.
Mark
On 17/06/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/06, Tomer Chachamu the.r3m0t@gmail.com wrote:
/me thought image deletions were permanent for disk-space reasons.
Why the hell does everybody seem to have thought that? There was never, as far as I am aware, any policy related to saving disk space that would cause that. It's simply that there was a lack of code until now. :)
Rob Church _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 05:50:08AM -0700, Mark Williamson wrote:
I don't know if we ever erased them permanently, though, and I also don't know with wham frequency images are deleted, and I'm also pretty sure disco space was never a real problem.
Yeah, I've always had room to dance.
. . .
By the way, a message to Brion: you da man.
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:56:24PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 05:50:08AM -0700, Mark Williamson wrote:
I don't know if we ever erased them permanently, though, and I also don't know with wham frequency images are deleted, and I'm also pretty sure disco space was never a real problem.
Yeah, I've always had room to dance.
Well, of course, Chad. It takes you less space to dance than, say, me.
By the way, a message to Brion: you da man.
He sure is.
Cheers, -- jr 'will kiss ass for food' a
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 01:44:46PM +0100, Rob Church wrote:
On 17/06/06, Tomer Chachamu the.r3m0t@gmail.com wrote:
/me thought image deletions were permanent for disk-space reasons.
Why the hell does everybody seem to have thought that? There was never, as far as I am aware, any policy related to saving disk space that would cause that. It's simply that there was a lack of code until now. :)
Likely (puts helpdesk hat on) because they knew that that otherwise useful functionality wasn't provided, and in lieu of an *actual* reason why not, they modeled it in their head, and that's what they came up with.
Apply 'telephone' to the result; blather, wince, repeat.
Cheers, -- jra
Rob Church wrote:
On 17/06/06, Tomer Chachamu the.r3m0t@gmail.com wrote:
/me thought image deletions were permanent for disk-space reasons.
Why the hell does everybody seem to have thought that?
I think this preconception has emerged when, a year or two ago, everyone here suddenly went crazy about saving article revisions as diffs, or gzip-compressed, or both, and several people came up with clever schemes and algorithms, and in the corresponding discussion disk space was constantly mentioned, and discussion of its efficiency (speed of retrieval) was silenced.
Timwi
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org