Sorry wrong url, i meant https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/153345/ not the url i wrote.
Anyways, if the original email was complaining about the config change and not the delete/edit rights change then its much more reasonable. i thus take back my previous email.
--bawolff On Aug 11, 2014 3:45 PM, "Brian Wolff" bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 11, 2014 2:34 PM, "James HK" jamesin.hongkong.1@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
[Putting purely the mw dev hat on]
I'm putting a hat on from pure observer point of view as neither a member of de.wp nor wmf.
Note: that i consider my mw dev hat to not involve wmf.
So dont complain that mw fixes a bug in how page protection. If you
are
I'm not complaining, I'm observing the events that happened around the introduction of <superprotected> and the swift action which did not involve any consultation or discussion (or rather a single statement from Erik Moeller where he cites security and code review as the inherent cause for the introduction).
It was a bug in mediawiki, and thus it should be fixed. MediaWiki is
used
{{cc}} (which bug, when was created and by whom)
I'm referring to https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/153349/ . I thought
that was what the parent message was referring to.
A bug is defined as a the software not working the way it is "expected"
to. Not all bugs are tracked in bugzilla, even if most are.
by many different groups and in general we [mw devs] do not judge
people
for how they use the software. If some non wmf entity reported the
bug, it
would still be fixed.
Interesting view, that means bugs that are to solve a political dispute are preferred over bugs that existed for years?
Cheers
Politics isnt really a criteria generally. Bugs are fixed based on many
metrics including severity, demands of users, ease of fixing, if there is someone interested in fixing it, etc. In this case it is very easy to fix, and there is an entity contributing to mw who is extremely interested in it being fixed. So it got fixed. But it would still probably have been fixed if somebody else complained.
--bawolff
On 8/12/14, Brian Wolff bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
Now, having observed that not only user Eloquence (aka Erik Moeller) himself engaged in the enforcement of <superprotect> right on de.wp [1] but soon after a workaround was published a change was deployed [2, 3] as counter measurement to block any possible interference can no longer be interpret as acting in good faith but rather strikes me as a form of oppression (or worst as censorship).
[Putting the purely mw dev hat on]
It was a bug in mediawiki, and thus it should be fixed. MediaWiki is
used
by many different groups and in general we [mw devs] do not judge
people
for how they use the software. If some non wmf entity reported the
bug, it
would still be fixed.
So dont complain that mw fixes a bug in how page protection. If you
are
unhappy with current events you should direct your anger at how the
wmf
decided to use hard security to enforce its dictates, not at the
software
for "working".
--bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l