[00:14:47] twkozlowski: It seems pretty clear that change is going to be merged. [00:14:59] And Steven's -2 will be either removed or ignored. [00:15:18] The slowness is expected and probably a good thing, as MatmaRex says. :-) [00:26:43] * bawolff is not sure its that clear cut [00:26:51] but I guess we'll wait and see [00:37:27] bawolff: Is there any opposition to going back to the status quo? [00:38:09] Well neither Steven nor Jared seem that thrilled about the idea [00:38:43] Jared seems to be actively avoiding participation in the development process. [00:38:52] And Steven is inappropriately inserting himself into it. [00:38:58] I think they cancel each other out. [00:39:19] The product manager for a feature release inserting themselves in to the release process is hardly inappropriate. [00:39:31] As Bartosz pointed out on the patch, it's not a settled issue. [00:39:44] As Chad says, if Steven doesn't want to remove his -2, any other developer can and perhaps will [00:39:46] Yes, it seems quite contentious at 7 to 1. [00:39:53] Plus the others on the mailing list. [00:40:03] Putting it at like 10 to 1, generously. [00:40:17] This is not a democracy. We don't vote. [00:40:23] Sure, it's a consensus. [00:40:27] Against your position. :-) [00:40:41] A consensus that doesn't just include what people on Wikitech-l complain about. [00:41:02] StevenW: So which other people should it include [00:41:09] Plenty of people are complaining on other mailing lists, on-wiki, in Bugzilla, and in Gerrit. [00:41:15] To be clear: I don't think the thing is settled. Either we will agree to abandon the patch or I will remove my -2 and we'll merge it. I don't intend to just let it rot. [00:41:18] And probably in real life, too. [00:41:52] I'd take the serif headers and consider that a win. I see no point in wasting energy fighting over this. [00:41:55] But shrug. [00:41:56] I wrote a pretty comprehensive and citation-rich post about this very issue (what kind of feedback are we getting) on Wikitech [00:42:00] Did you read the full thread? [00:42:05] Or, other people will remove your -2 and merge it. [00:42:12] I would not recommend doing that. [00:42:13] I've been following the "Free fonts and Windows" thread. [00:42:24] The last time Gloria did that, Tim and others warned him about it. [00:42:27] Krenair: I think Odder can remove the -2. [00:42:40] I've read all the threads (I believe its over 300 emails now) [00:42:50] Gloria: Odder shouldn't be able to [00:42:54] I don't think [00:42:57] StevenW: Nobody warned me about anything. [00:43:05] Don't you need +2 rights to remove someone else's vote? [00:43:13] Not on your own change, I don't think. [00:43:28] Oh yes, other developers and the change owner can remove -2s [00:43:30] Though I haven't tested recently. [00:43:36] That does sound like gerrit logic [00:44:09] The other thing I would consider here: if someone is going to merge that, they need to be comfortable announcing to every wiki why we changed it yet again, and reverted back styles that editors/readers said improved things. [00:44:28] That's not hard [00:44:33] Ha. [00:44:34] We have MassMessage for that [00:44:36] I don't think that's necessary, but it's not difficult. [00:44:36] Not really. MediaWiki doesn't exactly have an obligation to explain why WMF deployed a new version of MediaWiki. [00:44:52] I don't think going back to sans-serif is disruptive. [00:44:53] bawolff: you're also going to spend hours replying to angry editors who just said they liked this version? [00:44:59] That's what's it's been for a very long time. [00:45:04] You clearly have not been reading the thread then. [00:45:11] Which thread are you referring to? [00:45:18] The one on wikitech-l [00:45:21] That is the responsibility of the system administrators deploying to their organisation's wiki(s) [00:45:21] as well as [00:45:22] StevenW: That's a different issue then announcing it [00:45:35] I follow wikitech-l pretty closely. [00:45:40] * bawolff also doubts there would be as much flack as you think [00:45:51] I think most users noticed the serif headlines. [00:45:55] Or all of the threads across eswiki, enwiki, dewiki, frwiki, cawiki, and off-wiki where people said that removing Arimo, Liberation Sans fixed things for them [00:46:07] Who added Arimo? [00:46:11] And Liberation Sans? [00:46:22] Gloria: clearly you're not following the entire thing [00:46:29] Gloria, does it matter? [00:46:38] the first release included those before "Helvetica Neue" etc. [00:46:43] Well, Steven seems to be arguing that people support him. [00:46:49] Because they're happy that the user experience is now less broken. [00:46:56] they were only removed because they cause nasty rendering bugs on Windows XP and 7 [00:46:59] But that seems like pretty twisted logic to me. [00:47:05] Right. [00:47:08] Well unfortunately the code reviews of this patch do not reflect this [00:47:08] I know the full history. [00:47:11] You made the bug. [00:47:17] Now you're a hero for fixing it? [00:47:21] I don't really get what point you're making. [00:47:35] The point is that you're not actually paying attention to what users said they prefer. [00:47:44] They prefer a non-broken user experience. [00:47:45] Or even really reading all of the feedback. [00:47:46] Yes, I get it. [00:48:03] * bawolff read the feedback, got something very different out of it then you did... [00:48:14] I'm curious which particular wikitech-l posts support the change. [00:48:21] bawolff: really? You've read every thread across the major Wikimedia projects? [00:48:31] And the reader feedack posted on-wiki? [00:48:38] If you can't read every thread (or at least pretend to!), you don't get to comment. [00:48:46] StevenW: have you? [00:48:46] That seems super-reasonable. [00:48:49] bawolff: yes [00:48:56] it's all I've been doing practically for four days [00:48:58] Steven actually speaks 281 languages. [00:49:02] reading and responding to questions [00:49:14] I read most of the mails in OTRS/info-en about it. [00:49:17] StevenW: Really, so you read the feedback in #wikinews a couple hours ago when you weren't present? [00:49:33] I need ice cream. [00:49:37] We all do. [00:49:40] Or frozen yogurt. [00:49:48] All the ice cream places have closed. [00:49:52] bawolff: of course not. It's not logged and I'm not in IRC every hour of the day. [00:49:56] Just saying, there is no possible way anyone has read every single piece of feedback in the wikiverse [00:49:58] Because it's bad for you or something. But frozen yogurt will probably do. [00:50:10] Gloria: What's life without a little danger [00:50:17] I agree! [00:50:26] But that doesn't bring back the ice cream shops. :-( [00:51:06] bawolff: no, but I'm just saying that when I say the feedback and bugs presented do not support the idea that switching back to sans-serif plain won't regress the experience for readers and editors, I'm saying it because I've been spending hours trying to listen to all the feedback from people who are speaking in public fora about this. [00:51:07] StevenW: I've read feedback on commons vp, enwikipedia vpt, wikitech-l, and talk page of OMGFONTS. That's certainly not all the feedback, but its a significant amount [00:51:30] OMG it changed !== there is a bug or functional problem [00:51:46] I can't tell the difference between Helvetica and Arial. [00:51:57] And I'm pretty sure I don't have Helvetica Neue installed. [00:52:04] bawolff, OMGFONTS? [00:52:06] Gloria: if you're on a Mac you do. [00:52:15] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/OMGFONTS [00:52:15] It's default installed. [00:52:15] Krenair: its a redirect on mediawiki.org [00:52:29] spelling typography is hard [00:52:54] bawolff: Nemo made a page recently as well. <_< [00:53:15] oh, that sounds interesting [00:53:56] Oh, look at that. [00:54:00] I have Helvetica Neue. [00:54:31] I can't tell the difference between Helvetica and Arial and Helvetica Neue. * [00:54:34] There, better. [00:56:43] StevenW: I was serious about the what people beside wikitech-l should be included such a consensus question (Assume if we grant development decesions should be made by consensus). Which other people are/should be included? [00:57:18] I think the real argument here is that this isn't a development decision. [00:57:22] It's a design decision. [00:57:28] (Not to speak for Steven.) [00:57:34] Well designers should be on wikitech-l imo [00:57:43] Sure, but that's orthogonal. :-) [00:58:05] indeed [00:59:03] Gloria: http://www.fonts.com/content/learning/fyti/typefaces/arial-vs-helvetica and http://ilovetypography.com/2007/10/06/arial-versus-helvetica/ and [00:59:05] http://www.ironicsans.com/helvarialquiz/ [00:59:09] which is funny ^ [00:59:57] I've seen some articles about them. But day-to-day, cannot tell the difference to save my life. [01:00:52] bawolff: I think the feedback from readers and editors is a lot more important than a politically-motivated discussion on Wikitech-l about FOSS. If our concern is putting a FOSS font first again, then the solution is to focus on finding one that either we can deliver as a webfont (closer than it used to be when we started the project) or that doesn't cause the bugs Liberation Sans did. [01:01:16] In the interim, this is a not huge but improved experience for users. [01:01:18] Honestly, I don't even care about the FOSS issue [01:01:31] What concerns you about it then? [01:01:56] (The current stack.) [01:02:23] Well today I was reading an article, and I thought there was a typo adding an extra space. Nope turns out the kerning is so bad, that it creates a bigger space then the actual spaces [01:03:00] Kerning of Nimbus Sans L (I assume you're on Linux) [01:03:02] ? [01:03:04] yes [01:03:42] I'm concerned that it makes the font look quite a bit worse for some people, compared to just a little bit better for the other people, and the good for some people doesn't outweigh the bad for others [01:04:24] I think that's a totally reasonable concern. I think we can be more specific about discussing the exact tradeoffs on the list [01:04:28] Can you file a bug with a screenshot? (I will take a look more tonight. I have to run right now) [01:04:51] And the spectre of issues on non-latin wikis scare me. I may not be able to quantify how serious they are, but non-english wikis are such an isolated group, I'd like to see proof it won't harm them rather then proof it will [01:05:19] The bugs and complaints presented so far for non-Latin scripts are mostly to do with serifs for headings actually. [01:05:45] The right thing to do is probably to use LESS to set a sans stack for headings in Chinese-Japanese-Korean, for instance. [01:06:17] Other non-latin scripts (like Farsi) always have and probably always will use a series of local overrides. [01:06:46] Here's a screenie from earlier - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Typo-refresh-firefox-kerning.png (Since then I've seen worse examples [01:07:32] I am being dragged out the door, but I bookmarked that screenshot and will talk to Jared and Vibha about it. [01:07:47] StevenW: thanks [01:07:54] Sorry I can't stay more. [01:31:41] Hmm, I actually measured the space in the kerning. Both the place with a space, and the place without are exactly 3 pixels [01:50:32] twkozlowski: I copied you on https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57891 [01:50:41] Given your involvement with Tech/News and such. [01:53:43] * SamB wonders which font & OS bawolff saw that on; too lazy to look for context though ... [01:54:20] SamB: Nimbus Sans L was mentioned in scrollback. [01:54:27] SamB: Linux (firefox. Oddly enough chrome on the same computer does not have issue. Too bad I don't like chrome). I believe the font is nimbus sans [01:55:12] Gloria: Too bad that's not deployed, there has never been a time like the present for needing global css ;) [01:55:15] so is it a firefox bug, then, not a font bug? [01:55:26] I'd say its a font bug [01:55:36] it doesn't happen on other fonts [01:55:49] how does chrome escape? [01:56:02] I call it a "used to work and now it doesn't bug, can we please go back to something that worked" bug :) [01:56:17] I think chrome is chosing a different font [01:56:18] That's a fancy way of saying regression. [01:56:22] ah [01:56:22] indeed [01:58:52] heck, I'll even admit, that typo refresh looks slightly better then chrome defaults [02:00:18] Hmm, I think chrome is just using arial, which also seems to be the default "sans-serif" [02:00:35] So basically chrome looks good because it totally ignores the typography refresh... [02:03:26] https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=en.wikipedia.org (you've probably seen it already) [02:03:45] SSL Report: en.wikipedia.org. Overall Rating A- [02:04:28] much better than all the Fs I saw at my employer [02:04:41] RC4 cipher is used with TLS 1.1 or newer protocols, even though stronger ciphers are available. Grade reduced to A-. [02:04:48] The server does not support Forward Secrecy with the reference browsers. Grade reduced to A-. [02:07:27] Have you read the bug reports about this RandIter? [02:07:49] only one [02:07:57] sorry maybe i should [02:08:05] but it doesn't change anything [02:08:08] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53259 [02:08:13] some discussion was on https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33890 [02:08:37] RandIter, doesn't change anything? [02:09:23] thanks for the links. I've read the first one. [02:10:42] RandIter, not 100% sure about RC4 + TLS 1.1 [02:11:58] https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:HTTPS/Future_work mentions http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-September/071707.html [02:13:30] yea wikipedia is on TLS 1.2 now so [02:16:02] RandIter, yeah it's actually RC4 + TLS >= 1.1 [02:16:18] that is the issue [02:17:15] Firefox 27 / Win 8 RTLS 1.2TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (0x5) No FS RC4 [02:17:26] IE 11 / Win 7 RTLS 1.2TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (0x5) No FS RC4 [02:17:44] Safari 6 / iOS 6.0.1 RTLS 1.2TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (0x5) No FS RC4 [02:18:03] and two more for Safari [02:18:10] Krenair: are these the five lines of concern? [02:18:36] at minimum [02:18:57] RandIter, I believe all the lines marked RC4 are what it's complaining about [02:19:54] maybe let's compare with google https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=google.com&s=173.194.46.102&hideResults=on [02:21:24] Google has 0 lines matching both TLS 1.2 and RC4 [02:21:32] wikipedia has 5 [02:22:13] yes but google has no TLS 1.1 results, wikipedia has some [02:26:49] Krenair: it does? At least I don't see TLS 1.1 in the Handshake Simulation list. [02:27:45] RandIter, err... I thought it had. looking again apparently not [02:28:05] Anyway I need to go, bye [02:28:15] Krenair: thank you again for the links and info. bye [02:32:27] TimStarling: Cc above chat. I'm sure you've heard it already. [02:34:22] RandIter: I think that Ryan has done some work towards forward secrecy. There was some limiting issue as I recall but I don't remember the specifics. [02:38:40] he is presumably not responsible for it anymore [02:40:29] He and Chris were discussing ssl topics a couple of days ago, but I don't know what he's contracting for right now. [02:40:31] well, I mean, he still has root access, and he might be interested in it, but we can't really just assign the bug to him when he doesn't work for us anymore [02:44:56] https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=HTTPS/Future_work&action=history [02:45:41] RandIter: I guess Faidon or Mark B. would be the people to talk to about https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53259 if you're interested in working on it. [02:59:31] personally, I think SSL encryption configuration is a pretty minor issue [03:02:45] Are there outstanding major issues? [03:03:21] well, it depends on what you mean by outstanding [03:03:32] Unresolved. [03:03:35] certainly there are many, many undiscovered bugs in our software stack [03:03:41] https://en.wikipedia.org seems to work pretty well. [03:04:02] buffer overflows, dangling pointers, etc. [03:04:15] and so many places where privilege separation could be improved [03:05:14] Ah, you're taking a much more holistic view. Fair enough. [03:09:10] I think OpenSSL needs a bit more code review attention [03:09:20] once, maybe that's an accident [03:09:37] but two vulnerabilities that break the security of a significant proportion of the internet? [03:09:41] the whole point of PFS as i understand it is to help despite bugs in openssl [03:09:52] and RC4 is cracked realtime [03:11:21] http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2014/04/attack-of-week-openssl-heartbleed.html basically makes the same argument. [03:11:30] Re: supporting OpenSSL and its development. [03:11:40] TimStarling: wasn't the first one Debian's fault? [03:11:55] Twice's a coincidence, by the way. Three's a pattern. ;-) [03:12:16] Probably wanted "two's" there. [03:12:30] since this is not TV (it would have been cancelled by now if it were), I'd have to agree that two's just a coincidence [03:13:02] SamB: well, the blame was shared [03:13:10] I guess so [03:13:13] either party could have prevented it [03:13:25] * SamB <- loyal Debian user [03:15:53] the whole point of PFS as i understand it is to help despite bugs in openssl [03:16:01] yes, it does help [03:17:17] assuming the endpoints are not compromised [03:17:22] and RC4 is cracked realtime [03:17:40] you mean by the NSA? [03:17:43] yea [03:20:42] I think there are a lot of ways the NSA could get unencrypted logs [03:21:17] at least with RC4, there's no practical public attack, which as I understand it is not the case with the other options available to us [03:21:35] RC4 is also patented if used with SSL [03:21:56] or at least i read that Newegg had to pay up [03:24:45] if ssl labs says not to use it, i won't argue with them [03:25:51] i mean with TLS 1.2 [03:31:10] I don't think there is any bug open about RC4 [03:31:55] either in bugzilla or RT [03:32:40] so maybe you could file that? [03:33:10] I am looking through my IRC logs, there's not much discussion on it since 2012 and https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/2870/ [03:34:30] regarding BEAST, I'll just note here for the record that it's apparently inapplicable to TLS >= 1.1 [04:11:12] RandIter: but nginx doesn't let you specify ciphers by protocol [04:36:31] TimStarling: can i see the existing nginx ssl configuration setting lines for wikipedia somewhere? (if it's public) [04:38:02] https://git.wikimedia.org/tree/operations%2Fpuppet.git/5ca0cefa67a0325c615fcfc0f5a50a10dff7fb97/modules%2Fnginx%2Fmanifests maybe. [04:38:46] that is probably it [05:19:24] RandIter: See https://git.wikimedia.org/blob/operations%2Fpuppet.git/5ca0cefa67a0325c615fcfc0f5a50a10dff7fb97/manifests%2Frole%2Fprotoproxy.pp as well [07:53:25] andre__: there is at least a dozen bugs to be filed from reports on this talk, what to do? https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Typography_refresh [07:54:11] If there aren't resources to file bugs from reports on the page, we need to convince users in some way. A specific how-to for bug reporting of font bugs may be needed. [11:10:15] funny https://github.com/avar/mediawiki-git/blob/master/PLAN.md [11:20:59] Nemo_bis: I wonder how close to reality that was... [11:22:55] Nemo_bis, for triagers (not reporters) there is the section https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/How_to_triage#Situation_specific_information [11:23:27] regarding the Talk page, I'd expect developers to watch it and extract useful information. Are they aware of it? [11:30:56] avar: surely the username migration wasn't as easy [11:31:00] Also, hello :) [11:44:27] andre__: aware of what, of the page or of the need to transfer bugs? [11:44:51] first of all, page. [11:45:00] yes [11:46:02] Considering http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl?lang=www.mediawiki&page=Talk%3ATypography+refresh [15:32:38] hashar: Hi! Could you have a look to https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/102475/21 , please? [19:01:43] MatmaRex: can you coordinate with Odder on announcing the sans-serif revert via Tech News etc? [19:02:21] Communities paying attention to this (esp. the big Wikipedias) are going to want to know before it hits with the next MW deploys. [19:02:50] StevenW: i'm sure he's more than able to figure this out, but i'm here for a few more hours if anyone needs me [19:03:08] I'm here. [19:03:11] but yeah, this is not very urgent right now unless someone wants to backport and deploy it right now [19:03:15] twkozlowski: ^ [19:03:18] oh, you're here. [19:03:20] :) [19:03:27] We don't have to do it immediately, unless someone does that during a SWAT deploy. [19:03:50] I assume that people just want to let it ride the train next week. [19:03:55] (we just missed a branch being cut yesterday, so this is going to take a while to become visible) [19:04:45] so, hi, I'm at a conference, but yeah, let me know who will be on point for this [19:04:58] StevenW: MatmaRex ^ [19:06:41] where on point == will be doing the deploy if we aren't waiting until wfm23 to be cut (ie: waiting for enwiki until April 24th) [19:07:01] thx greg-g I am not going to request a backport/deploy [19:07:22] two weeks is ok? [19:07:57] ie: this is the worst case scenario in our deploy cycle ;) [19:08:02] timing-wise [19:08:31] best case testing wise, though :) [19:10:59] greg-g: StevenW: i'm wondering if it should be backported to the branch that was cut yesterday (whatever the number is), since it'd take so long otherwise, but i'm perfectly fine with not doing that [19:11:19] I would be okay with that, since it won't require a deploy [19:11:20] MatmaRex: I'm feeling the same/would prefer not waiting until the 24th [19:11:33] given the optics of it all [19:13:30] MatmaRex: can you propose a backport to wmf22 via gerrit? we can get it in early next week in a swat (add me as a reviewer) [19:14:37] greg-g: sure [19:15:02] MatmaRex: thanks [19:16:51] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/125447/ [19:18:17] ty [19:25:33] MatmaRex: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deployments&diff=109438&oldid=109433 [19:25:50] thanks [19:35:28] greg-g: James_F is editing the Deployments page to add the VE changes and indicate that I'm the one that'll be doing the Monday 4pm deploy [19:35:39] Probably by ~~striking through~~ the other names or something [19:35:39] coolio [19:35:51] (Other formatting suggestions welcome, we haven't really done that before) [19:36:50] {{done}} [19:37:31] greg-g: BTW, the "requesting developer" / "patchset" prompt seems to be working for the SWATs. [19:37:40] James_F: yep, well done sir! [19:37:48] * James_F cackles. [19:37:48] * greg-g goes to lunch [19:37:51] See you. [19:38:55] James_F: Will you be adding VE items for Tech News today? [19:43:02] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59913 ugh [19:43:12] I hate that the WMF's address is there. [19:46:35] twkozlowski: I already did it. [19:48:11] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tech/News/2014/16&action=history you did? [19:49:32] twkozlowski: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46315 [19:52:50] Then why don't non-Echo e-mails contain the address? [19:53:06] It only says Your friendly MediaWiki notification system [19:56:23] twkozlowski: selective law enforcement is the rule [20:48:29] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2014-April/000671.html [20:48:42] Fabrice sent this on April 10, inviting people to office hours on April 9? Hm. [20:49:30] twkozlowski: looks like he was just off by a week: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours#Upcoming_office_hours [20:50:20] Yep. [21:10:02] Is there somewhere I can get a copy of the config for FlaggedRevs as it is used on English Wikipedia? [21:10:50] At nowiki we finaly reached some kind of consensus on use of Pending changes [21:11:37] ..and hi to aude and other devs at WMDE [21:11:58] jeblad, it's part of the operations/mediawiki-config repository in git [21:12:12] ..even JeroenDeDauw! [21:12:43] Krenair: Okey, I take a look.. [21:13:49] jeblad, specifically you'll want CommonSettings.php, InitialiseSettings.php and flaggedrevs.php in the wmf-config directory [21:45:36] James_F: I'll take this as a no, then. [21:45:49] But I'll work from https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=VisualEditor/status&diff=next&oldid=952367 [21:48:31] twkozlowski: Take what? [21:49:29] James_F: You said you added VE items to Tech News, but I can't see anything at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tech/News/2014/16&action=history [21:49:45] twkozlowski: Oh. Damn. Did MW swallow my edit without saving? [21:49:49] * James_F grumbles. [21:51:35] twkozlowski: Re-done from an old draft. [21:52:10] yay drafts [21:54:04] James_F: Thanks a lot; are there any bugs or patches for the first two items? [21:54:23] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=302400&order=priority,bug_severity&product=VisualEditor&query_format=advanced&target_milestone=VE-deploy-2014-04-10 doesn't show anything [21:54:27] twkozlowski: No bugs; I could drag out the patches but I'm not sure it's that interesting. [21:55:07] Oh. We're dealing with Wikipedians, they have to see some sources. [21:55:50] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/124662/ is one [21:57:41] The other one I can't find, James_F [22:05:26] James_F: BTW, I don't think that https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50255 is the right bug number [22:05:47] "The second edit tab – either the wikitext editor's "Edit source", or VisualEditor's "Edit" or "Edit beta" – will now fold into the drop-down menu if there's not enough space on the user's screen." [22:06:06] from https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/status#2014-04-10_.28MW_1.23wmf22.29 [22:32:24] Uh...search crashing on wikitech? [22:32:32] ^d: ^ [22:32:39] https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Yaseo&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go e.g. [22:32:59] Seems to happen for all search strings [22:33:24] Not happening on cluster, but still [22:35:56] marktraceur: wikitech was just updated this morning to wmf22 (it's not on the train, it's whenever someone gets poked hard enough) [22:36:23] Hm. [22:36:52] yeah, I get nothing [22:52:46] Should have a bug report. [23:10:31] twkozlowski: Aha, yes, you fixed it. [23:20:54] !nyan | jeblad [23:20:56] :( [23:28:57] > Oh. We're dealing with Wikipedians, they have to see some sources. # <3 [23:32:17] siebrand can you help me? [23:32:38] What's your question?