[02:25:24] !log LocalisationUpdate completed (1.20wmf5) at Sun Jun 24 02:25:23 UTC 2012 [02:25:34] Logged the message, Master [13:31:05] https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:92.255.198.126&oldid=554570 [13:31:28] Is that an XSS attempt? [13:33:09] and https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=VisualEditor:Welcome&diff=prev&oldid=554569 [13:36:27] posting XSS attempts in a public IRC channel? [13:54:32] closedmouth, you're mistaken if you think I'm going to keep this sort of thing deliberately hidden. :) [13:55:49] Even if I was somehow obliged to keep it private it's a) obviously un-successful, b) possible, not definite, c) on a public site [13:57:07] where's the xss? [13:57:18] I see it fails to render that "word" [13:57:27] but where is it xssing? [13:58:17] it's moved inside a display: none [14:34:15] Platonides: huh? i just saw it escaped? nothing missing so nothing in display: none. i think [17:21:57] thehelpfulone: lol - so sorry that one list is apparently more controversial to create than I was hoping :) also - as a rule I don't feed MZMcBride's random attacks on me - but I can comment here if you'd like - basically his accusations (as usual) are false and he's just on this effort to keep me out of WM activities for some reason..well I do know why..we had a large argument months ago and he can't get over it..so.. [17:22:55] but yay - folks generally know that while I'm pro-LGBT I've been very careful not to allow that enter enWP content or efforts and my advocacy is outreach and safe space creation in nature - not relating to content or project usage - that's silly - plus I have a LGBT specific wiki I can do that on [17:23:02] *yeah [17:23:55] Does your LGBT wiki have rainbow unicorns? [17:24:01] lol [17:24:10] http://www.wikiqueer.org [17:24:27] we went pink instead of rainbow - I think as a LGBT activist I have a deep-rooted dislike of that damn rainbow [17:24:45] it's like if you work for Disney..you hate the mouse ears icon :) [17:24:46] Labs has a better unicorn :D [17:24:56] it's true actually - lol - someone joked about that actually [17:25:09] we have a test site - Lambda - and I was teased for not using it there first - lol [17:25:29] I'm not sure if Ryan or who picked it - but they apparently stole it from the minds of our tech ppl - lol [17:27:18] Totally could make the horn rainbow coloured though [17:28:26] eh - just lead to more accusations of a gay agenda on wikimedia :) [17:28:43] "even the servers are being recruited!" [17:30:38] Shame they're not mounted in the racks with sex screws [17:31:34] ha! [17:32:02] I had some penis shaped screwdrivers at one point - could have donated those to ops for use as well.. [17:33:56] o.0 [17:38:13] * varnent casually whistles and walks back across the line that he apparently crossed [17:38:24] lol :) [17:39:19] varnent: can has some list creation bugnums? [17:39:46] jeremyb: I'm causing problems on bugzilla :) [17:44:36] varnent: frankly i'm having trouble thinking of anything that would go on wikitech-announce but not also wikitech-ambassadors? [17:44:43] maybe i'm just not thinking hard enough ;P [17:45:14] ambassadors was seen - at least by me and others - as being more for folks wanting to do outreach - and I think it's a discussion compatible list [17:45:29] huh [17:45:49] that's totally not what i thought it was and not how i saw it used [17:45:58] wikitech-announce is for less-engaged developers that don't want to be ambassadors to anyone - they just want an email every week or so with a MW developer related update [17:46:35] i thought it was just for people that are slightly techy from the various projects that want to help dessiminate warnings about changes or requests to test stuff, etc. to their local communities [17:46:37] jeremyb: ultimately though it is setup for discussion - as I understand it - but maybe we can merge them if I'm wrong - I think in that case the -announce title is more appropriate than -ambassador [17:46:48] jeremyb: oh - well that could be too [17:46:55] in any case - it's not the same audience as here :) [17:47:14] well idk what would be announced then [17:47:22] this is largely for folks like Wikia developers, corporate developers - folks on the fringe of our development work - but chiming in with extensions here and there [17:47:58] so, have a weekly summary email to wikitech with a clearly marked subject line and people can just read that message and ignore the rest [17:48:00] it's responding to requests from them for announcements of interesting blog postings, when tech report comes out, when tech part of signpost comes out - sort of like 5% of the email that goes to wikitech-l [17:48:13] i think wikitech volume isn't so huge that it's a burden [17:48:19] jeremyb: I agree with folks that digest emails are annoying to read [17:48:19] but idk [17:48:27] for some it is a burden [17:48:32] digest emails? [17:48:37] when you have 500-600 emails coming in a day - 5 more emails is a burden :) [17:48:44] i'm not saying use digest mode. don't use digest mode [17:48:55] just shunt it off to a folder/label and bypass the inbox [17:49:02] ultimately I don't expect anyone on wikitech-l to join this [17:49:19] anyway, i guess it would be nice to see an example or two of this weekly mail [17:49:29] so I don't expect they'll be keen on the idea :) but there were developers asking for this - and my general feeling is that anything we can do to engage more developer help is worth trying out [17:50:01] * jeremyb grumbles... give me samples! ;P [17:50:05] jeremyb: there's one on bugzilla - but I'll put together a description with DanielR, sumanah and others to see if we can find one that seems to convey well to folks [17:50:35] one what? [17:50:43] i see no sample on 37887 [17:50:49] jeremyb: like I said - they requested an email be sent when there is a major posting to the tech blog, the monthly engineering report, tech section of signpost updates and major MW related announcements not sent to mediawiki-a (like GIT related changes) [17:50:56] those are my examples [17:51:06] there is no "sample" as they are emails which already exist - not a new email [17:51:32] i thought you were going to send an email once a week with a summary of dev news? [17:51:56] I guess I'm confusing why ppl object to its creation - lol - it's not something they're expected to join or manage and as far as I know mailman isn't short on space - we have a developer outreach staff who would take this on..so.. [17:52:12] jeremyb: no - I said an email would go out about once a week [17:52:42] well - that's what I meant anyway :) [17:52:49] I can see how you could read it both ways though [17:55:18] I'm also not explaining it as well as the folks that requested it - although I was tasked with making it happen - so should work on a better answer :) [17:56:33] jeremyb: truth be told - my initial reactions were "let's add more to mediawiki-a" which was quickly shot down - or "just join wikitech-l and use filters" which was sort of accepted at first but ultimately didn't seem to work for folks I was pushing it with - so..I figured we'd try this..if it doesn't work..we'll delete it and try the next idea :) [18:12:13] Thehelpfulone: ty again for shepherding the process along as the discussion on bugzilla continues :) I appreciate the tact you've taken [18:16:50] Hi. Can somebody please update php/cache/interwiki.cdb ? [18:17:23] We've updated some important interwiki links. [18:19:07] mafk: you mean on meta? [18:19:30] jeremyb: yes, the [[meta:Interwiki map]] page needs to be synced. [18:21:47] !log reedy synchronized php/cache/interwiki.cdb 'Updating interwiki cache' [18:21:53] Logged the message, Master [18:22:04] mafk [18:22:10] Yup, seen. [18:22:22] Thank you very much reedy [18:25:07] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=27771992&diff=499168588&oldid=497370872 <-- rapid deployment = official :) [18:57:00] Nemo_bis: ty for your balanced comments on bz - I appreciated a clearly unbiased party weighing in [18:57:54] varnent, I don't know if I'll be considered unbiased but thank you :) [18:58:16] eh - not as clearly linked to the source project :) [18:58:48] brb - food [18:58:53] and I don't think Brooke has anything against you, it's just a different view on our projects [18:59:09] oh yeah - I don't think there are any like enemies there or anything :) [18:59:27] well MZ and I don't necessarily like each other - but the other engaged I all respect [18:59:32] okay - now brb food :) [19:00:25] tommorris' comment was a bit inflaming ;) [19:01:57] Inflaming? [19:02:16] Flaming I can handle, but I think I was pretty calm all things considered. [19:02:45] Given the invocation of the Big Lie, I was remarkably restrained. [19:14:34] tommorris, it was particularly unwarranted and ironic given who had commented before [19:14:52] IMHO [19:27:36] tommorris: It was kind of stupid. [19:27:41] You're usually smarter than that. [19:28:17] You have to realize that outside of the wiki-bubble, this is still a highly political issue for a lot of poeple. [19:28:20] people, too. [19:28:33] Hey, it's more of a political issue *in* the wikibubble. ;-) [19:28:44] The wiki-bubble is also what makes any accusations of anti-LGBT bias on the wiki projects even more laughable. [19:28:50] I mean, really. [19:29:06] Like half the editorship is some kind of sinner. [19:29:20] If anything, it helps people on the wiki projects. [19:32:52] "partisans". Brooke, if you thinkg varnent is a partisan... [19:33:06] tommorris: The guy who runs wikiqueer.org? [19:33:17] Hmm. That's not a partisan in the political battle? [19:33:31] what political battle exactly? [19:34:03] Gay rights are a political battleground. [19:34:09] Can I haz admin on the wiki and shout down some tons of spam? [19:34:10] Um, everywhere, I think. [19:34:30] anybody of the scribunto folks around? [19:34:35] that one got lost [19:35:04] Brooke: but what does a rights campaign IRL have to do with a wikimedia outreach project? [19:35:05] tommorris: You disagree with the term partisan? [19:35:17] jeblad, what are you talking about? [19:35:19] tommorris: That's what I keep saying. :-) [19:35:47] Nemo_bis: tons of spam on scribunto.wmflabs.org [19:36:07] Brooke: no, you seem to assume that anything with the letters LGBT in them automatically involves shouty partisan folk. [19:36:21] tommorris: No, just when those shouty partisan folk want to run the mailing list. [19:36:28] With their shouty partisan friends. ;-) [19:36:47] jeblad, are Labs wikis worth combating spam? [19:36:56] they're temporary anyway [19:37:07] hehehe.. goood question.. [19:37:09] I suppose #wikimedia-labs might be of more help [19:37:12] Just irritates me [19:37:23] labs wikis are mostly dumps I suppose [19:37:24] Set up an abuse filter rule? [19:37:32] Or just get the wikis restricted. [19:37:42] Or use the spam to test anti-spam tools! [19:37:47] Brooke, why don't you volunteer to admin the list? :) [19:37:59] Nemo_bis: I may subscribe, but I don't really want to run it. [19:38:03] aww [19:38:03] I think tommorris would probably be fine. [19:38:05] Or Dereckson. [19:38:15] hear hear [19:38:30] Brooke: but, you know, I've said lots of horrendously partisan things like that I should be legally afforded equality under British law. Gasp! ;-) [19:38:48] tommorris: Do you run an advocacy wiki? [19:38:54] Brooke, quite typical of you, you left the non-nasty part (good candidates) out of your comment ;) [19:39:24] Nemo_bis: I'm still wary of the entire idea. [19:39:31] heh [19:39:54] Though looking at the other mailing lists, they're already a mix of completely wtf topics and activity levels. [19:40:05] So in that context, adding another is no big deal. [19:40:44] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/treasurers/2012-April/thread.html <-- Who knew Jimmy was subscribed to this list? [19:41:10] I should probably join toolserver-l [19:41:55] uhoh making completely red herring replies [19:41:57] > The Texanexes-l Archives [19:42:19] I like wmfkids [19:42:22] Nemo_bis: There are multiple questions to answer in that bug. [19:42:35] orly [19:42:45] "Should such a mailing list exist on lists.wikimedia.org?" is the first. Then you have to decide who should be in charge of it. [19:42:56] I think i've already answered that one [19:43:03] of course it's just my opinion [19:47:30] tommorris: Would it be fair to say that WikiQueer is a political organization engaged in political advocacy? [19:47:52] No, it's a wiki. [19:48:05] Hmmm. [19:48:10] I guess that's where the disconnect lies, then. [19:48:23] He said organization, not entity. [19:48:27] But then I do live in evil sinful Europe where this kind of stuff isn't controversial. [19:48:29] * Nemo_bis naware of exact definitions [19:48:43] tommorris: How many European countries have gay marriage? [19:48:54] surely not Italy :( [19:49:34] Brooke: a few. Britain's Tory government have it on the agenda to happen before the next election. Tories. Yes. The people who gave us Section 28 are now giving us marriage. [19:49:52] tommorris: Only a few? You said this kind of stuff isn't controversial. :-) [19:50:01] You're being a little silly. [19:50:54] Anyway, I view WikiQueer as a political organization engaged in political advocacy. I may agree with some of its points, but I'm still very wary of it, esp. as people try to intertwine their political groups with Wikimedia. [19:51:02] Brooke: Anyway, the point is just this. lgbt@lists.wikimedia.org is hardly going to be a rampaging political group. It'll be more hunting down photos of long-deceased queens and uploading them to Commons. [19:51:03] Same with SOPA. Same with a lot of other things. [19:51:15] tommorris: I hope so. :-) [19:51:42] tommorris: Though Wikimedia mailing lists don't have a great history... so I'm not so sure about the future. [19:51:43] nah, SOPA is just WMF bosses realizing that hunting dozens millions dollars is not the full extent of their potential power [19:51:44] Sexual orientation is no more political advocacy than gender or race is. [19:52:11] The Civil Rights Movement was also political, yes. [19:52:39] As was the Suffrage Movement. [19:52:53] And the Equal Rights Era. [19:52:56] if someone wanted to set up a project to improve the coverage of black history and work with the various institutions around Black History Month, would we be worrying about whether someone who runs racehistory.org might be involved? [19:52:56] suffragettes are on gendergap list I'd think [19:53:12] tommorris: Yes. [19:53:15] affirmative discrimination is allowed [19:53:54] tommorris: Put better, if the head of the NAACP wanted to run blacks@lists.wikimedia.org, I think it'd be a red flag. [19:54:19] varnent will be very flattered that you attribute so much power and influence to him. [19:54:28] These are political bodies. [19:54:42] WikiQueer's front page has a whole section advocating for a particular U.S. law. [19:54:49] To suggest that it's not political is just crazy. [19:54:58] It's definitely engaging in political advocacy. [19:55:09] Whether from that you can say it's a political organization seems simple to me. [19:55:12] * Brooke shrugs. [19:55:31] okay, and http://blog.tommorris.org/tagged/lgbt contains a fair amount of political advocacy. does this disqualify me? [19:55:57] or perhaps shouldn't we judge these things based on whether there is any reason qua my role or varnent's role on the Wikimedia projects for there to be concern [19:56:55] I think there's reason to be concerned with both proposed moderators and I said so. [19:57:07] Others disagree. One of the mailman admins will sort it out. [19:58:01] If we needed to put it in a USA vs. Europe frame, we could say that it's just a different COI handling matter. [20:38:31] okay I'm back from dinner [20:39:07] Brooke: I never said WikiQueer wasn't an advocacy wiki - in face I said the exact opposite - it in part exists because I believe so sternly that advocacy content should NOT be on WM project sites [20:39:42] Brooke: and if NAACP wanted to create poc@lists.wikimedia.org I think that would be fantastic!!! i would love to see some people of color outreach! [20:42:03] Brooke: so because I'm a LGBT activist in my professional work it's inconceivable that I could respect the boundaries of projects I support? that's both ridiculous and unfair [20:43:01] Brooke: as I've said many times - my only "gay agenda" for Wikimedia is to get more LGBT folks involved - using Wikipedia to help pass ENDA or advocating for unrealistic pro-LGBT policies within WMF wouldn't help professional advocates anyway - so why bother to begin with - and I think that would be a terrible use of enWP [20:43:39] Brooke: advocating for safe space policies that hundreds of other nonprofits utilize doesn't seem like advocacy to me anymore than asking for equal pay for women is showing a feminist bias [20:45:35] I reckon some of those gendergappers have conflicts of interest what with the whole being women thing. ;-) [20:46:24] Brooke: I state in several places on WikiQueer that we have a bias - and we have it in part to help Wikipedia LGBT editors feel they don't have to exert that bias on Wikipedia - I'm at a loss for why my statements or objectives make me unbalanced in my NPOV or listserv management. I already manage other lists and have said again on bugzilla that I care way more about the list being created than about who is moderating it - generally folks hate [20:46:24] work so I felt volunteering was being nice - but lol - it's not something I'm willing to fight for - I will, however, advocate for the creation of the list itself :) [20:48:01] I reckon we need to get both Dan Savage and Dharun Ravi to moderate the list. y'know, for balance, so we can get both the gay-kids-shouldn't-jump-off-bridges perspective and the other side for balance [20:48:06] tommorris: I will ask some WMF staffers if they'd mind helping with moderating - guillom would like to pass - and I don't blame him at all - but I'll ask some others - ideally there should be (in my opinion) half a dozen moderators and at least 1-2 of them being staffers [20:48:19] lol @ tommorris [20:48:41] varnent: well, could ask Sarah Stierch. she's always been LGBT friendly, and will keep everyone in line. [20:49:02] * varnent has an urge to go recruit some folks to create poc@lists.wikimedia.org now.. [20:49:21] tommorris: that's a good idea - I'll ask around in Teahouse and Outreach channels [20:51:20] tommorris: she's not online right now - will try her later - worst case scenario we can do recruitment at wikimania - but I'd rather be doing listserv member recruitment than still dealing with list creation by then [20:53:02] I think Sarah has already stepped down from some lists administration [20:54:29] sumanah is also an ally - but over-extended already as well [20:54:30] hrm [21:29:53] hello all!! I am new to this IRC channel. Can somebody help me how I can volunteer as a freelance sys admin? i dont know if this is the right place to ask though! Thanks!! [21:31:21] adminxor: sys admin for what? [21:32:18] varnent: I wonder if an pro-choice advocacy wiki came along and wanted to start abortion@lists.wikimedia.org, whether people would view it as uncontroversial. [21:32:46] a pro-choice * [21:33:38] People seem to think that pointing out that this issue is both political and controversial is the same as wanting it to be to poiltical or controversial. That's just the reality. [21:34:34] I can help server monitoring to begin with. I have worked on Solaris, Ubuntu, Red Hat among other U*X variants like FreeBSD, AIX, HP-UX. I am currently employed at IBM but I am looking forward to contribute to Wikimedia Foundations in my way. :) [21:34:57] sumanah is also an ally - but over-extended already as well <-- Ally is a strange word to use. [21:35:24] adminxor: You want to take to Ryan_Lane. [21:35:29] adminxor, they're not giving out shell or anything any longer [21:35:44] adminxor: There are plenty of opportunities to help out with system administration (ops). [21:35:49] what you can do is usually experimenting with Wikimedia Labs [21:36:01] well Brooke will answer you better anyway [21:36:20] Nemo_bis: well, I think you're selling things short [21:36:26] we push things to production often [21:36:37] and we push directly into the production branch now as well [21:36:51] code reviewed things get deployed directly to production now [21:37:11] so, shell or not, volunteer contributions directly affect the running of the site [21:37:32] yes yes I was going to say that but there's no need when you two are already answering [21:37:44] It's kind of silly that it took Git to get people submitting patches to Wikimedia's configuration files. [21:37:47] also, the staff ops people generally operate the same way (I usually only use root to run puppet directly) [21:37:53] Brooke: why? [21:37:54] It would've been just as easy with SVN. [21:37:59] no, it wouldn't have [21:38:07] branching is fucking horrible in svn [21:38:17] and svn doesn't support gated trunk [21:38:19] You don't need to make a branch to submit a change to CommonSettings.php or whatever. [21:38:28] review was after submit [21:38:44] we *must* review before submit [21:39:20] some form of dvcs is a requirement for this kind of thing [21:39:34] adminxor: anyway, we'd love to have your help :) [21:39:42] Thank you all for answering. So where do I start to look at? [21:39:43] adminxor: are you familiar with puppet? [21:39:57] we went pink instead of rainbow - I think as a LGBT activist I have a deep-rooted dislike of that damn rainbow [21:40:08] it's not a necessity, but anything that goes into production gets there through puppet [21:40:23] ... says the guy who uploaded . [21:40:25] things in labs can be done without puppet knowledge, but at some point labs things should be puppetized as well [21:40:26] wtf [21:41:29] Brooke: not really. [[Straight ally]]. She occasionally hangs out in #wikimedia-lgbt and has been pretty cool rather than seeing a couple wiki-editing queens chatroom as some malicious powergrab. [21:41:40] adminxor: we try to do all changes in Labs, for testing, then move them to production [21:41:54] adminxor: see: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Labs [21:42:04] the proposals are a great place to start: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Labs#Proposals [21:42:19] tommorris: I usually see "ally" is a battle context. [21:42:25] in a * [21:42:27] I can't type todya. [21:42:28] I have a little knowledge of puppet. It's used to maintain configurations etc. if I'm not wrong. I'm willing to learn as I go ;) [21:42:30] today :-( [21:42:30] adminxor: some of those things are already being worked on [21:42:32] tommorris: what political battle exactly? [21:42:43] some require software development [21:42:51] tommorris: It's not a political battle, it just involves politics and battle terminology, heh. [21:43:11] Thanks for the links. [21:43:37] adminxor: also, please submit info here for an account: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_access [21:44:09] Okay, sure. Thank you. [21:44:10] tommorris: Viewing political advocacy as political advocacy is usually pretty easy. If you don't see it here, you're probably too close to the issue? [21:45:20] adminxor: also, it's likely best to be on #wikimedia-labs [21:45:29] since that's where most volunteers ops work occurs [21:46:50] Oh great!! [21:47:12] I'm now on the page to request an account. [21:47:19] Brooke, it didn't took git to submit patches to those files... [21:47:28] there was no repository with them! [21:47:40] lol @ Brooke [21:47:48] * Nemo_bis disliked "ally" a bit too [21:48:05] Brooke: I haven't been really folllowing the conversation, but from what I read it doesn't seem like a very technical topic [21:48:24] paravoid: It's really not. It's related to a bug. That's why it came up in here. [21:48:33] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37888 [21:48:54] Platonides: People could have submitted patches to Bugzilla or wherever. I just think it's strange that it took Git to do that. [21:48:54] you could come over to our den of sin and iniquity to discuss it. [21:49:29] Brooke, it was harder to apply one-liners than performing the changes themselves [21:49:47] I suppose that's true. [21:50:14] so there was little incentive to provide that as patches [21:50:36] Well, that burden is on the sysadmin, not the patch submitter. [21:50:44] But that makes sense. [21:52:07] Brooke: I'm not sure why everything's got to be so negative. we're moving in the right direction, right? [21:52:32] it's great we have wmfconfig in git now [21:52:39] You mean with Git? I guess. I don't use it, but it seems to be getting better. [21:52:52] no. I mean the openness with our infrastructure [21:53:08] I'm not being negative about SVN --> Git, I just think it's curious that the conf files were also public and able to have patches submitted, but people have only recently started doing it. [21:53:18] were also --> were always [21:53:25] it's more difficult to deal with patches [21:53:31] and the sysadmins are incredibly busy [21:53:44] it's easier when you can code review and the system just merges itin [21:54:09] people put patches into bugzilla previously [21:54:16] Right. [21:54:29] they tended to sit there for ages, and then when it went in for merge it was a pain [21:54:43] you can rebase a changeset in git [21:56:26] so, anyway, if you want to complain about stuff, complain about things that aren't working right now, rather than things that are already fixed [21:57:36] noo please [21:57:43] it's better than the previous discussion :p [21:58:08] Ryan_Lane: Well, putting the files in Git is just a crutch that slows the development of a proper configuration UI. ;-) [21:58:22] heh [21:58:32] you guys just have to have something to bitch about, eh? :) [21:58:38] I do have something to complain about thogh [21:58:44] ^ [21:59:01] Brooke: hahaha [21:59:04] Brooke: sure sure :) [21:59:46] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/06/13/engineering-may-2012-report/#comments [22:00:10] is that actually accurate, though? [22:00:49] I'm not sure what you are basing this on, but we've added 200 developers in the last three months [22:01:01] we had 350 *total* before [22:01:11] that's not even active [22:01:20] I'd be surprised if 1/3 of the people in svn were active [22:01:45] That's not really a fair comparison. [22:01:53] SVN was much older. [22:02:00] .... [22:02:06] In a few years, there will hundreds of inactive Git accounts, to be sure. [22:02:10] yes [22:02:27] but right now, we added 200 [22:02:39] which is almost definitely more than the active number of people we had in svn [22:03:32] I'm not sure how meaningful that metric is, unless Wikimedia is in a git-dick measuring contest? [22:03:36] hell we added almost 130 in one month [22:03:50] we have a report that git is less active than svn [22:03:59] yet we're adding more people faster than we ever did in svn [22:04:10] A report from whom? [22:04:22] the fucking engineering report [22:04:41] "108 developers got http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_access." [22:04:52] that's a single month [22:05:02] Right. Nemo is talking about people making commits. [22:05:05] You're talking about new accounts. [22:05:07] I think? [22:05:29] I think so [22:05:34] they're not contradictory [22:05:42] Sumanah team has been spamming people to request a gerrit account [22:05:44] According to Nemo, the number of commits in Git is lower than it was in SVN. [22:05:56] in all projects? [22:05:57] and they have been promptly given [22:06:28] I'd find that hard to believe [22:06:33] Platonides: The manual intervention required to receive an account is another complaint. ;-) [22:06:50] or do you mean just mediawiki? [22:06:57] Ryan_Lane: My guess is that the measuring is a bit difficult to do, given that what a "commit" is isn't as clear inGit? [22:07:01] yes, it sucks that there's a manual process for an account [22:07:02] Nemo_bis: ^^ [22:07:11] though, its much easier to get an account now than it used to be [22:07:15] Ryan_Lane, why is the manual process needed? [22:07:21] Labs [22:07:30] we need to make some adjustments before we can open registration [22:07:58] Platonides: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37628 [22:08:00] Brooke, yes you're right, the numbers should be checked [22:08:03] and no, there's no explicit timeframe [22:08:26] easiest answer might be that we should count both git and svn as long as the codebase is split [22:09:29] we're at changeset 12835 [22:09:41] that's about the number of committers, not of commits [22:09:46] gerrit has been around for about 8 months? [22:10:04] maybe 4 for developers and 8 for ops? [22:10:23] I doubt guessing will produce useful results [22:10:31] * Ryan_Lane shrugs [22:10:43] you have to assume that many of those changesets have more than one patch [22:11:08] we can get exact numbers, but I have a feeling we do more commits in gerrit than we did in svn [22:11:09] can patches in a changeset have multiple authors? [22:11:13] yes [22:11:31] so that's another thing to consider [22:11:37] you can't really count operations commits [22:11:40] as they were not in svn [22:11:48] each patch must be considered a commit [22:11:50] but gerrit also requires more changesets because there are more repos involved doesn't it? [22:11:54] for instance with l10n [22:12:06] yes, true [22:12:30] not many users modify many files at once though I'd think [22:12:42] I don't see how that matters [22:13:10] if we're counting active committers is matters, doesn't it [22:13:37] still don't see how that matters [22:13:46] the l10n bot is doing some couple order of magnitudes more commits but still it's a single active committers [22:13:53] yes [22:14:10] either way, we'll start getting metrics soon enough [22:14:19] the analytics team will start putting out a report soon [22:14:25] it'll be on reportcard.wmflabs.org [22:14:33] no point arguing about it [22:14:53] oh, nice :) [22:15:13] will it also include past history? [22:15:32] I have no clue [22:16:46] can anyone check for me " select rc_timestamp, rc_id, rc_user, rc_user_text, rc_old_len, rc_new_len from recentchanges where rc_cur_id=127131 order by rc_timestamp desc limit 40; [22:17:07] " on plwiki_p for https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37919 ? [22:17:28] I'm running it now. [22:17:36] I don't think rc_cur_id is indexed, though. [22:17:39] Might take a few minutes. [22:17:45] thanks [22:18:18] I hope it's just a display issue, not wrong values in the db [22:18:52] toolserver lags behind unfortunately :( [22:20:52] Ryan_Lane, and what definitions are they using? [22:21:10] looks important given what we've just said [22:31:26] Nemo_bis: no clue [22:31:36] Nemo_bis: you'd need to talk to them about it [22:31:40] Ryan_Lane, ok thanks [22:31:56] but I've no clue abot git so I wouldn't know what to say [22:32:17] should be easy enough to figure out from the git repo itself, though too [22:32:33] hm [22:32:36] well, maybe not [22:32:41] you'd need to clone all of them [22:33:01]