hi-
i'm hopeful this is the appropriate venue for this topic - i recently had occasion to visit #mediawiki on freenode, looking for help. i found myself a bit frustrated by the amount of bot activity there and wondered if there might be value in some consideration for this. it seems to frequently drown out/dilute those asking for help, which can be a bit discouraging/frustrating. additionally, from the perspective of those who might help [based on my experience in this role in other channels], constant activity can sometimes engender disinterest [e.g. the irc client shows activity in the channel, but i'm less inclined to look as it's probably just a bot].
to offer one possibility - i know there are a number of mediawiki and/or wikimedia related channels - might there be one in which bot activity might be better suited, in the context of less contention between the two audiences [those seeking help vs. those interested in development, etc]? one nomenclature convention that seems to be at least somewhat of a defacto standard is #project for general help, and #project-dev[el] for development topics. a few examples of this i've seen are android, libreoffice, python, and asterisk. adding yet another channel to this list might not be terribly welcome, but maybe the distinction would be worth the addition?
as i'm writing this, i see another thread has begun wrt freenode, and i also see a bug filed that relates at least to some degree [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35427], so i may just be repeating an existing sentiment, but i wanted to at least offer a brief perspective.
regards -ben
That's what I said this week, we should make #mediawiki-feed where all bots would live and leave #mediawiki for humans
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:01 PM, btb btb@bitrate.net wrote:
hi-
i'm hopeful this is the appropriate venue for this topic - i recently had occasion to visit #mediawiki on freenode, looking for help. i found myself a bit frustrated by the amount of bot activity there and wondered if there might be value in some consideration for this. it seems to frequently drown out/dilute those asking for help, which can be a bit discouraging/frustrating. additionally, from the perspective of those who might help [based on my experience in this role in other channels], constant activity can sometimes engender disinterest [e.g. the irc client shows activity in the channel, but i'm less inclined to look as it's probably just a bot].
to offer one possibility - i know there are a number of mediawiki and/or wikimedia related channels - might there be one in which bot activity might be better suited, in the context of less contention between the two audiences [those seeking help vs. those interested in development, etc]? one nomenclature convention that seems to be at least somewhat of a defacto standard is #project for general help, and #project-dev[el] for development topics. a few examples of this i've seen are android, libreoffice, python, and asterisk. adding yet another channel to this list might not be terribly welcome, but maybe the distinction would be worth the addition?
as i'm writing this, i see another thread has begun wrt freenode, and i also see a bug filed that relates at least to some degree [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35427], so i may just be repeating an existing sentiment, but i wanted to at least offer a brief perspective.
regards -ben
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com wrote:
That's what I said this week, we should make #mediawiki-feed where all bots would live and leave #mediawiki for humans
The important thing to do is to make the bots channel +m, so only the bots can talk. Otherwise, development discussion will follow to the new channel and this is a bad thing.
-Chad
The important thing to do is to make the bots channel +m, so only the bots can talk. Otherwise, development discussion will follow to the new channel and this is a bad thing.
+10000. Splitting devs way from support means support questions go unanswered by devs. As long as we aren't splitting the discussion up into multiple channels it sounds like a good solution.
- Ryan
The important thing to do is to make the bots channel +m, so only the bots
can talk. Otherwise, development discussion will follow to the new channel and this is a bad thing.
Agreed. Forcing the bots separate from the devs will keep the discussion a lot easier to follow too, both in real time and especially when reading logs.
I'm also in agreement that giving the bots their own channel is a great idea. I don't get on #mediawiki that terribly often, but Bug #35427 that Petr showed us convinced me that it needs done sooner than later.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com wrote:
I'm also in agreement that giving the bots their own channel is a great idea. I don't get on #mediawiki that terribly often, but Bug #35427 that Petr showed us convinced me that it needs done sooner than later.
Well the IRC spam from L10n was a separate issue, that's been silenced.
-Chad
Please move the bots out.
On Jun 21, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Chad wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com wrote:
I'm also in agreement that giving the bots their own channel is a great idea. I don't get on #mediawiki that terribly often, but Bug #35427 that Petr showed us convinced me that it needs done sooner than later.
Well the IRC spam from L10n was a separate issue, that's been silenced.
-Chad
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
Please move the bots out.
I like bots. I've taken care of some bugs or CR only because I've seen it on IRC.
+1 for flood protection and thanks for silencing l10n
//Saper
Ok, I was bold and created #mediawiki-feed let's configure it as we proposed. It will be +m and all bots will have voice. All devs who want +f in that channel so that they can configure flags and rules for bots, just ping me in #mediawiki
If there was some problem we can always put it back, I moved wm-bot feeds for now to that new channel
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com wrote:
The important thing to do is to make the bots channel +m, so only the bots
can talk. Otherwise, development discussion will follow to the new channel and this is a bad thing.
Agreed. Forcing the bots separate from the devs will keep the discussion a lot easier to follow too, both in real time and especially when reading logs.
I'm also in agreement that giving the bots their own channel is a great idea. I don't get on #mediawiki that terribly often, but Bug #35427 that Petr showed us convinced me that it needs done sooner than later.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I was bold and created #mediawiki-feed let's configure it as we proposed. It will be +m and all bots will have voice. All devs who want +f in that channel so that they can configure flags and rules for bots, just ping me in #mediawiki
If there was some problem we can always put it back, I moved wm-bot feeds for now to that new channel
Well let's not shut anything off in #mediawiki just yet. This has only been on the list for an hour so let's allow some other people the chance to weigh in :)
-Chad
Well let's not shut anything off in #mediawiki just yet. This has only been
on the list for an hour so let's allow some other people the chance to weigh in :)
Aye. It may be daylight hours in the States, but it isn't necessarily everywhere; some of the people on this list may be sleeping or otherwise unable to read their emails right now. Given the nature of the change (as I'm sure that some people use those feeds), I personally would suggest waiting 24 hours on it.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott Computer Specialist Alizee Pathology
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
Le 21/06/12 18:09, Derric Atzrott a écrit :
I personally would suggest waiting 24 hours on it.
And since we do not deploy on Friday, that is never going to happen before at least monday June 25th :-]
Well we've had bots in the channel for years--I don't think another weekend is going to kill us.
-Chad
Le 21/06/12 17:13, Petr Bena a écrit :
That's what I said this week, we should make #mediawiki-feed where all bots would live and leave #mediawiki for humans
Please note we also have #mediawiki-codereview which received notifications from Special:CodeReview. It is already setup, so we could just use that existing channel.
If you're moving all bots, including wikibugs, then you can't use -codereview because wikibugs isn't a code review bot. It's for bugs.
Krenair
On 21/06/12 17:14, Antoine Musso wrote:
Le 21/06/12 17:13, Petr Bena a écrit :
That's what I said this week, we should make #mediawiki-feed where all bots would live and leave #mediawiki for humans
Please note we also have #mediawiki-codereview which received notifications from Special:CodeReview. It is already setup, so we could just use that existing channel.
That's my point as well
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Krenair krenair@gmail.com wrote:
If you're moving all bots, including wikibugs, then you can't use -codereview because wikibugs isn't a code review bot. It's for bugs.
Krenair
On 21/06/12 17:14, Antoine Musso wrote:
Le 21/06/12 17:13, Petr Bena a écrit :
That's what I said this week, we should make #mediawiki-feed where all bots would live and leave #mediawiki for humans
Please note we also have #mediawiki-codereview which received notifications from Special:CodeReview. It is already setup, so we could just use that existing channel.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
+ -feed is shorter than -codereview, we could just rename channel (move access list and settings)
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com wrote:
That's my point as well
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Krenair krenair@gmail.com wrote:
If you're moving all bots, including wikibugs, then you can't use -codereview because wikibugs isn't a code review bot. It's for bugs.
Krenair
On 21/06/12 17:14, Antoine Musso wrote:
Le 21/06/12 17:13, Petr Bena a écrit :
That's what I said this week, we should make #mediawiki-feed where all bots would live and leave #mediawiki for humans
Please note we also have #mediawiki-codereview which received notifications from Special:CodeReview. It is already setup, so we could just use that existing channel.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Or we could keep both
codereview as it is and new -feed for all lightweight feed bots we had in #mediawiki
because if we move the bot from -codereview the new feed will have way too many review reports
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com wrote:
- -feed is shorter than -codereview, we could just rename channel
(move access list and settings)
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com wrote:
That's my point as well
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Krenair krenair@gmail.com wrote:
If you're moving all bots, including wikibugs, then you can't use -codereview because wikibugs isn't a code review bot. It's for bugs.
Krenair
On 21/06/12 17:14, Antoine Musso wrote:
Le 21/06/12 17:13, Petr Bena a écrit :
That's what I said this week, we should make #mediawiki-feed where all bots would live and leave #mediawiki for humans
Please note we also have #mediawiki-codereview which received notifications from Special:CodeReview. It is already setup, so we could just use that existing channel.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com wrote:
Or we could keep both
codereview as it is and new -feed for all lightweight feed bots we had in #mediawiki
because if we move the bot from -codereview the new feed will have way too many review reports
Well, -codereview isn't terribly active these days, since we've moved off CodeReview and onto Gerrit, so there shouldn't be an overall increase in announcements compared to what we're used to.
-Chad
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Krenair krenair@gmail.com wrote:
If you're moving all bots, including wikibugs, then you can't use -codereview because wikibugs isn't a code review bot. It's for bugs.
Krenair
Will the world end if we do this? No.
If you're moving all bots, including wikibugs, then you can't use -codereview because wikibugs isn't a code review bot. It's for bugs.
Will the world end if we do this? No.
Although the world won't end, I agree with Krenair that -codereview is for code reviews, not bugs. Depending on the volume of the code-review bot though I don't see a problem with having that bot in both channels (-codereview and -feed) though. This way we keep our channel names accurate and descriptive.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com wrote:
That's what I said this week, we should make #mediawiki-feed where all bots would live and leave #mediawiki for humans
If we relegate the bots to a separate channel, pretty soon they'll figure out no one is paying attention to them, and plot to overthrow us. You can't be too careful about these things!
On second thought, all hail our robot overlords!
(seriously, let's move the bot traffic to a separate channel)
Rob
I would prefer to see wikibugs stay in #mw to be honest, There is sometimes support stuff in there, as well as other important stuff. I'm sure people don't want to be flicking IRC channels every X, and wikibugs wasn't that high of traffic either...
wikibugs is one of most active bots there, if we are supposed to keep it, we should filter only bugs related to mediawiki at least
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:42 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
I would prefer to see wikibugs stay in #mw to be honest, There is sometimes support stuff in there, as well as other important stuff. I'm sure people don't want to be flicking IRC channels every X, and wikibugs wasn't that high of traffic either...
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikibugs is more active than gerrit? I've been sitting in the irc channel less than 30min (not the best user case) but that experience tends to suggest otherwise.
I didn't say so, but still it's second most active bot
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:56 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
Wikibugs is more active than gerrit? I've been sitting in the irc channel less than 30min (not the best user case) but that experience tends to suggest otherwise.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Le 21/06/12 22:49, Petr Bena a écrit :
wikibugs is one of most active bots there, if we are supposed to keep it, we should filter only bugs related to mediawiki at least
We got a Gerrit change for that somewhere. Still pending review / deployment though.
Code is in subversion still:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki?path=/trunk/tools/wiki...
That would let wikibugs split message per bugzilla Product and hence to different channels. Definitely going to reduce the spam from it.
Maybe I should migrate that tool and its SVN history to a git repository
On 21/06/12 22:42, K. Peachey wrote:
I would prefer to see wikibugs stay in #mw to be honest, There is sometimes support stuff in there, as well as other important stuff. I'm sure people don't want to be flicking IRC channels every X, and wikibugs wasn't that high of traffic either...
Me too. -1 to moving them to another channel.
It's yet another channel to join, keep an eye on, add to autojoin. We start with a negative weight.
#mediawiki bots give useful, human-generated content. Compare with tsnag at #wikimedia-toolserver, that's a nagios bot that spits out warnings quite frequently on its own. There's little utility other than ignoring it.
What do #mediawiki bots report? - A person created a bug. We want that. - Someone commented a bug (sometimes more relevant than others, but also useful) - A new patchset - A new comment They are *useful* data. How many bugs advanced just because someone commented it and then a bunch of developers looked at it from the wikibugs log?
We also use them in our workflow. If we are talking about some bug, it's useful to view in the same channel that someone created that bug, or added extra information. If it's at a different tab, I may see it too late. Also things like a discussion "$USER, you should fix X", the commit appearing in the channel is an indirect answer. Same for when you refer to a comment, "Foo, that fixme message [on the previous line] is on a commit of yours". Go to another tab, and look in the scrollback for a notification at a similar time isn't agile. Someone adds a bug, you comment on the channel something about that one. Being on the same place improves the workflow.
Now, the problems: I agree commit bursts can be annoying, such as translatebot, but that has been fixed. Also, bug topic segregation will help by leaving only the relevant ones (eg. by excluding bugs for SMW, labs, WLM... which would go to their own channels).
"You assume that it's bot activity". I disagree. I consider #mediawiki as written by someone, and look at it as coming from a human, even when it has been a bot (heh, it has been *someone* at another place).
"It's hard to make a conversation." I don't find them being a problem. The messages are espaciated enough not to be problematic if you were talking anything else at the same time. There are also sometimes several intermixed conversations taking place at once. Which they are not a problem if they aren't too many. This is jut the same.
Why are they suddenly a problem? I guess part of the problem is that gerrit-wm is more verbose than svn commits (even when they spawned several lines). For instance, it outputs two messages for a merge (New review + Change merged), instead of just one. You have to parse them to realise they are just the same action. That's something that ought be fixed (at gerrit side), but taking the bots out of the channel isn't a solution. *That* would lead to them being ignored. (btw, as a last resort option, you can /ignore the bots)
Platonides wrote:
It's yet another channel to join, keep an eye on, add to autojoin. We start with a negative weight.
#mediawiki bots give useful, human-generated content. Compare with tsnag at #wikimedia-toolserver, that's a nagios bot that spits out warnings quite frequently on its own. There's little utility other than ignoring it.
What do #mediawiki bots report?
- A person created a bug. We want that.
- Someone commented a bug (sometimes more relevant than others, but also
useful)
- A new patchset
- A new comment
They are *useful* data. How many bugs advanced just because someone commented it and then a bunch of developers looked at it from the wikibugs log?
Yes to this and yes to the rest of you what you wrote in this post.
The issue here seems to be that we need smarter (or saner) bots, not a separate channel. We wouldn't allow users to output so much noise in the channel, even if it were relevant to MediaWiki. It's called flooding and it's a not a particularly new or interesting problem. Just don't have the bots flood and people won't mind them nearly as much.
And if people still do mind the bots, they can ignore the bots easily enough client-side. If people want a feed channel as a unified stream, I think every bot should be able to easily support that. But having some reporting in #mediawiki is nice and useful.
MZMcBride
I have never seen any such a channel for user support and developers which is getting flooded like this one. It's nearly unusable for people who are seeking help with mediawiki. If you really want to keep the bots in channel, we should create #mediawiki-help for people who are seeking that and don't want to be brought in channel where everyone ignores them because their support question is lost in the feeds. That isn't just unfriendly but it doesn't even make sense to have such a channel. Indeed it's useful for devs, but in this case we shouldn't use it as a support channel
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:16 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Platonides wrote:
It's yet another channel to join, keep an eye on, add to autojoin. We start with a negative weight.
#mediawiki bots give useful, human-generated content. Compare with tsnag at #wikimedia-toolserver, that's a nagios bot that spits out warnings quite frequently on its own. There's little utility other than ignoring it.
What do #mediawiki bots report?
- A person created a bug. We want that.
- Someone commented a bug (sometimes more relevant than others, but also
useful)
- A new patchset
- A new comment
They are *useful* data. How many bugs advanced just because someone commented it and then a bunch of developers looked at it from the wikibugs log?
Yes to this and yes to the rest of you what you wrote in this post.
The issue here seems to be that we need smarter (or saner) bots, not a separate channel. We wouldn't allow users to output so much noise in the channel, even if it were relevant to MediaWiki. It's called flooding and it's a not a particularly new or interesting problem. Just don't have the bots flood and people won't mind them nearly as much.
And if people still do mind the bots, they can ignore the bots easily enough client-side. If people want a feed channel as a unified stream, I think every bot should be able to easily support that. But having some reporting in #mediawiki is nice and useful.
MZMcBride
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 22/06/12 05:46, Petr Bena wrote:
I have never seen any such a channel for user support and developers which is getting flooded like this one. It's nearly unusable for people who are seeking help with mediawiki. If you really want to keep the bots in channel, we should create #mediawiki-help for people who are seeking that and don't want to be brought in channel where everyone ignores them because their support question is lost in the feeds. That isn't just unfriendly but it doesn't even make sense to have such a channel. Indeed it's useful for devs, but in this case we shouldn't use it as a support channel
Are you sure they are ignored due to the bots, and it's not just that nobody was looking at the channel at that time? Bots may be implicated, but let's not blame them gratuitously.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:49:05 -0700, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
What do #mediawiki bots report?
- A person created a bug. We want that.
- Someone commented a bug (sometimes more relevant than others, but also
useful)
- A new patchset
- A new comment
They are *useful* data. How many bugs advanced just because someone commented it and then a bunch of developers looked at it from the wikibugs log?
This very likely accounts for at least 1/3 of all the bugs and reviews I contribute to.
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Daniel Friesen daniel@nadir-seen-fire.comwrote:
This very likely accounts for at least 1/3 of all the bugs and reviews I contribute to.
I agree. While I can't say the same for Gerrit because I have my notifications set to send me all changesets anyway, whenever I'm IRC I find myself clicking on random bugs that were just commented on to see what's going on.
*-- * *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo@gmail.com
btb wrote:
i'm hopeful this is the appropriate venue for this topic - i recently had occasion to visit #mediawiki on freenode, looking for help. i found myself a bit frustrated by the amount of bot activity there
Indeed. Made discussion very hard to follow and I end up doing private message to people asking for support or talking to #wikimedia-dev :-(
Gerrit change https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/12388 would move Gerrit bot and Wikibugs to #mediawiki-feed
No worries new channel is already.logged so they could grab the feed from log. Anyway waiting is a good idea On Jun 21, 2012 6:11 PM, "Antoine Musso" hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
btb wrote:
i'm hopeful this is the appropriate venue for this topic - i recently had occasion to visit #mediawiki on freenode, looking for help. i found myself a bit frustrated by the amount of bot activity there
Indeed. Made discussion very hard to follow and I end up doing private message to people asking for support or talking to #wikimedia-dev :-(
Gerrit change https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/12388 would move Gerrit bot and Wikibugs to #mediawiki-feed
-- Antoine "hashar" Musso
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
In my experience, the bots in the channel are an important part of our workflow -- new bug reports, bug updates, and patches in gerrit. When I'm discussing things in #wikimedia-dev I usually end up having to manually add references to something that a bot already sent to #mediawiki, which is one of the reasons I've always preferred using #mediawiki.
Please don't make yet another split-off channel; that'll be annoying and make things more complicated for little if any benefit.
-- brion
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:01 AM, btb btb@bitrate.net wrote:
hi-
i'm hopeful this is the appropriate venue for this topic - i recently had occasion to visit #mediawiki on freenode, looking for help. i found myself a bit frustrated by the amount of bot activity there and wondered if there might be value in some consideration for this. it seems to frequently drown out/dilute those asking for help, which can be a bit discouraging/frustrating. additionally, from the perspective of those who might help [based on my experience in this role in other channels], constant activity can sometimes engender disinterest [e.g. the irc client shows activity in the channel, but i'm less inclined to look as it's probably just a bot].
to offer one possibility - i know there are a number of mediawiki and/or wikimedia related channels - might there be one in which bot activity might be better suited, in the context of less contention between the two audiences [those seeking help vs. those interested in development, etc]? one nomenclature convention that seems to be at least somewhat of a defacto standard is #project for general help, and #project-dev[el] for development topics. a few examples of this i've seen are android, libreoffice, python, and asterisk. adding yet another channel to this list might not be terribly welcome, but maybe the distinction would be worth the addition?
as i'm writing this, i see another thread has begun wrt freenode, and i also see a bug filed that relates at least to some degree [ https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/show_bug.cgi?id=35427https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35427], so i may just be repeating an existing sentiment, but i wanted to at least offer a brief perspective.
regards -ben
______________________________**_________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikitech-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
In my experience, the bots in the channel are an important part of our workflow -- new bug reports, bug updates, and patches in gerrit. When I'm discussing things in #wikimedia-dev I usually end up having to manually add references to something that a bot already sent to #mediawiki, which is one of the reasons I've always preferred using #mediawiki.
Please don't make yet another split-off channel; that'll be annoying and make things more complicated for little if any benefit.
Wait... Why don't we just move the more verbose bots to #wikimedia-dev. If we already have a #wikimedia-dev channel, why don't we use that for the dev related discussions and #wikimedia for support? If #wikimedia were only used for support and #wikimedia-dev for development there would be no reason to have the bug report bots in #wikimedia right?
Or am I missing something?
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
In my experience, the bots in the channel are an important part of our workflow -- new bug reports, bug updates, and patches in gerrit. When I'm discussing things in #wikimedia-dev I usually end up having to manually add references to something that a bot already sent to #mediawiki, which is one of the reasons I've always preferred using #mediawiki.
Please don't make yet another split-off channel; that'll be annoying and make things more complicated for little if any benefit.
I think I agree with Brion more than anyone else. I find the bots to be incredibly useful, and jumping back and forth between channels is a pain. Also like I've said multiple times in multiple places over the past couple of days--when you move channels you fracture discussion. It happened with #wikimedia-dev, and it'll happen again here if we don't do this right.
However, I see the argument to be made that if you're not a regular then the bots can be rather annoying to filter out. And honestly, someone who drops in for a few minutes to ask a question shouldn't be asked to /ignore every random bot they see.
Is there some middle ground here?
-Chad
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
In my experience, the bots in the channel are an important part of our workflow -- new bug reports, bug updates, and patches in gerrit. When I'm discussing things in #wikimedia-dev I usually end up having to manually
add
references to something that a bot already sent to #mediawiki, which is
one
of the reasons I've always preferred using #mediawiki.
Please don't make yet another split-off channel; that'll be annoying and make things more complicated for little if any benefit.
I think I agree with Brion more than anyone else. I find the bots to be incredibly useful, and jumping back and forth between channels is a pain. Also like I've said multiple times in multiple places over the past couple of days--when you move channels you fracture discussion. It happened with #wikimedia-dev, and it'll happen again here if we don't do this right.
However, I see the argument to be made that if you're not a regular then the bots can be rather annoying to filter out. And honestly, someone who drops in for a few minutes to ask a question shouldn't be asked to /ignore every random bot they see.
Is there some middle ground here?
-Chad
I agree with all the above (hm.. I see a pattern emerging :D ).
I think the middle ground is to keep the bots in a regular discussion channel, but not the channel where most support and new-user development takes place, but a channel where most core developers hang out. I'm talking about #wikimedia-dev.
I'll cite myself from CR: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/12388 :
We should make the bots smarter, and spread out to relevant channels
(rather than everything in one channeL). But I don't think one (or more) "bot channels" is going to work. The main concern raised (iirc) is that new users don't like them. And I agree the 'user' level doesn't have much use for them. A few ideas:
* #mediawiki: wikibugs for Product=MediaWiki (maybe + MediaWiki extensions).
- #wikimedia-dev: wikibugs for Product=Wikimedia.
* Other bugs are not sent to IRC (unless additional rules are inserted.
e.g. mobile could have their component output in their channel)
* #wikimedia-dev: gerrit-wm messages currently assigned for #mediawiki
could be moved to #wikimedia-dev. That will reduce the flood for support, while keeping them in the relevant context of developers and conversations.
-- Krinkle
Yes, the bots are useful for devs, that's the reason why we made them and there is a little point to argue about that. But they aren't useful for other users of #mediawiki especially users who seek help. IMHO #mediawiki should be used for development (bots are probably ok), #wikimedia-dev for wikimedia related developement (some bots are ok) and there should be another channel for mediawiki support, which would be user friendly.
If we keep the bots as they are we won't fix anything (if you think that there is no issue, read the first mail).
If we move the bots to #wikimedia-dev we likely kill the #wikimedia-dev channel, and all #mediawiki devs will loose the track of what's going on (defacto we rename #mediawiki to #wikimedia-dev and most of people who were in #mediawiki will just move to -dev).
If we move the bots to separate channel which would be +m, we will make all channels more usable for regular talk. But some people will find it difficult because they would have to switch channels more often.
If we create new channel for mediawiki help and keep the rest as it is, we solve this problem as well.
If we get all bots to -feed channel, and reconfigure them to send only topic related feed to current channels, (mediawiki related stuff to #mediawiki, wikimedia related stuff to #wikimedia-dev) then we could either make the channels friendlier and we could have a relevant stuff in there (I don't understand why #mediawiki devs need to see bugs related to wikimedia platform issues, these should go to -dev). That would mean more spam in -dev and less spam in #mediawiki and more relevant feeds, people who just like to watch spam and flood could stay in #mediawiki-feed. It would involve some people to work on that and change the code of bots, devs are lazy (like me) so this is likely a bad option :)
Don't say things are OK right now, they clearly aren't. If they are fine for you, that doesn't mean they are fine for others. Bots are good for devs, no wonder, we made them. But there are other users too.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Krinkle krinklemail@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
In my experience, the bots in the channel are an important part of our workflow -- new bug reports, bug updates, and patches in gerrit. When I'm discussing things in #wikimedia-dev I usually end up having to manually
add
references to something that a bot already sent to #mediawiki, which is
one
of the reasons I've always preferred using #mediawiki.
Please don't make yet another split-off channel; that'll be annoying and make things more complicated for little if any benefit.
I think I agree with Brion more than anyone else. I find the bots to be incredibly useful, and jumping back and forth between channels is a pain. Also like I've said multiple times in multiple places over the past couple of days--when you move channels you fracture discussion. It happened with #wikimedia-dev, and it'll happen again here if we don't do this right.
However, I see the argument to be made that if you're not a regular then the bots can be rather annoying to filter out. And honestly, someone who drops in for a few minutes to ask a question shouldn't be asked to /ignore every random bot they see.
Is there some middle ground here?
-Chad
I agree with all the above (hm.. I see a pattern emerging :D ).
I think the middle ground is to keep the bots in a regular discussion channel, but not the channel where most support and new-user development takes place, but a channel where most core developers hang out. I'm talking about #wikimedia-dev.
I'll cite myself from CR: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/12388 :
We should make the bots smarter, and spread out to relevant channels
(rather than everything in one channeL). But I don't think one (or more) "bot channels" is going to work. The main concern raised (iirc) is that new users don't like them. And I agree the 'user' level doesn't have much use for them. A few ideas:
- #mediawiki: wikibugs for Product=MediaWiki (maybe + MediaWiki extensions).
- #wikimedia-dev: wikibugs for Product=Wikimedia.
- Other bugs are not sent to IRC (unless additional rules are inserted.
e.g. mobile could have their component output in their channel)
* #wikimedia-dev: gerrit-wm messages currently assigned for #mediawiki
could be moved to #wikimedia-dev. That will reduce the flood for support, while keeping them in the relevant context of developers and conversations.
-- Krinkle _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 23/06/12 20:34, Petr Bena wrote:
Yes, the bots are useful for devs, that's the reason why we made them and there is a little point to argue about that. But they aren't useful for other users of #mediawiki especially users who seek help. IMHO #mediawiki should be used for development (bots are probably ok), #wikimedia-dev for wikimedia related developement (some bots are ok) and there should be another channel for mediawiki support, which would be user friendly.
If we keep the bots as they are we won't fix anything (if you think that there is no issue, read the first mail).
If we move the bots to #wikimedia-dev we likely kill the #wikimedia-dev channel, and all #mediawiki devs will loose the track of what's going on (defacto we rename #mediawiki to #wikimedia-dev and most of people who were in #mediawiki will just move to -dev).
If we move the bots to separate channel which would be +m, we will make all channels more usable for regular talk. But some people will find it difficult because they would have to switch channels more often.
The problem is not as much as switching channels, but seeing the changes after the fact, when you'd have liked it 5 minutes earlier. A solution could be to configure each individual to copy -feed messages to the #mediawiki screen, but I'm not fond of that solution. Chad asked for a middle ground, actually there would be a way in irc to make the bot messages to only arrive to some people, but it'd be very hacky. And with any of these, it'd be confusing that people read different things at the same time on the same channel.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/06/12 20:34, Petr Bena wrote:
Yes, the bots are useful for devs, that's the reason why we made them and there is a little point to argue about that. But they aren't useful for other users of #mediawiki especially users who seek help. IMHO #mediawiki should be used for development (bots are probably ok), #wikimedia-dev for wikimedia related developement (some bots are ok) and there should be another channel for mediawiki support, which would be user friendly.
If we keep the bots as they are we won't fix anything (if you think that there is no issue, read the first mail).
If we move the bots to #wikimedia-dev we likely kill the #wikimedia-dev channel, and all #mediawiki devs will loose the track of what's going on (defacto we rename #mediawiki to #wikimedia-dev and most of people who were in #mediawiki will just move to -dev).
If we move the bots to separate channel which would be +m, we will make all channels more usable for regular talk. But some people will find it difficult because they would have to switch channels more often.
The problem is not as much as switching channels, but seeing the changes after the fact, when you'd have liked it 5 minutes earlier. A solution could be to configure each individual to copy -feed messages to the #mediawiki screen, but I'm not fond of that solution. Chad asked for a middle ground, actually there would be a way in irc to make the bot messages to only arrive to some people, but it'd be very hacky. And with any of these, it'd be confusing that people read different things at the same time on the same channel.
Could we maybe take this single discussion on-wiki? I'm finding it impossible to keep track of all of the IRC discussions in separate locations (here, bugzilla) when what we need is just one centralized place to hash this out.
Might I suggest: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git/IRC?
Thanks,
Chad
This isn't discussion about git, but feeds we have in #mediawiki, feed from git is definitely not the only one
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/06/12 20:34, Petr Bena wrote:
Yes, the bots are useful for devs, that's the reason why we made them and there is a little point to argue about that. But they aren't useful for other users of #mediawiki especially users who seek help. IMHO #mediawiki should be used for development (bots are probably ok), #wikimedia-dev for wikimedia related developement (some bots are ok) and there should be another channel for mediawiki support, which would be user friendly.
If we keep the bots as they are we won't fix anything (if you think that there is no issue, read the first mail).
If we move the bots to #wikimedia-dev we likely kill the #wikimedia-dev channel, and all #mediawiki devs will loose the track of what's going on (defacto we rename #mediawiki to #wikimedia-dev and most of people who were in #mediawiki will just move to -dev).
If we move the bots to separate channel which would be +m, we will make all channels more usable for regular talk. But some people will find it difficult because they would have to switch channels more often.
The problem is not as much as switching channels, but seeing the changes after the fact, when you'd have liked it 5 minutes earlier. A solution could be to configure each individual to copy -feed messages to the #mediawiki screen, but I'm not fond of that solution. Chad asked for a middle ground, actually there would be a way in irc to make the bot messages to only arrive to some people, but it'd be very hacky. And with any of these, it'd be confusing that people read different things at the same time on the same channel.
Could we maybe take this single discussion on-wiki? I'm finding it impossible to keep track of all of the IRC discussions in separate locations (here, bugzilla) when what we need is just one centralized place to hash this out.
Might I suggest: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git/IRC?
Thanks,
Chad
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't discussion about git, but feeds we have in #mediawiki, feed from git is definitely not the only one
Then please feel free to move it to a better name. I really don't care what the pagename is :)
-Chad
Page name is fine, the first sentence isn't :P
Done
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't discussion about git, but feeds we have in #mediawiki, feed from git is definitely not the only one
Then please feel free to move it to a better name. I really don't care what the pagename is :)
-Chad
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't discussion about git, but feeds we have in #mediawiki, feed from git is definitely not the only one
Then please feel free to move it to a better name. I really don't care what the pagename is :)
-Chad
Project:CurrentIssues perhaps? if people don't want it to be in the git "NS"?
It doesn't matter where it is. Question is what we are going to do, because the channel is still getting spammed... I proposed several ideas in this discussion, do you need to have them on wiki?
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:06 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't discussion about git, but feeds we have in #mediawiki, feed from git is definitely not the only one
Then please feel free to move it to a better name. I really don't care what the pagename is :)
-Chad
Project:CurrentIssues perhaps? if people don't want it to be in the git "NS"?
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Le 27/06/12 10:24, Petr Bena a écrit :
It doesn't matter where it is. Question is what we are going to do, because the channel is still getting spammed... I proposed several ideas in this discussion, do you need to have them on wiki?
Per Chad, yes please :-}
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git/IRC
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org