[03:20:49] <greg-g>	 twkozlowski: ?
[03:21:21] <greg-g>	 twkozlowski: ah, yeah, just being a part of the next train
[03:36:38] <greg-g>	 twkozlowski: also, neat! https://lwn.net/Articles/603442/
[15:17:43] <Carmela>	 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News/2014/27
[15:17:45] <Carmela>	 Hrm.
[15:18:37] <twkozlowski>	 ?
[15:18:44] <Carmela>	 The Toolserver is dying.
[15:18:52] <twkozlowski>	 It is.
[15:18:55] <Carmela>	 We're going to enable globally renaming users, which is still a mess.
[15:19:07] <Carmela>	 And PFS is being announced, even though there hasn't been an assessment on user impact, I guess.
[15:24:57] <twkozlowski>	 Don't bit the messenger...
[15:25:00] <twkozlowski>	 bite*
[15:41:06] * Reedy bites Carmela
[17:18:55] * Nemo_bis hands spare teeth to Reedy 
[17:19:45] <Nemo_bis>	 twkozlowski: I think Carmela just meant it's an eventful week.
[17:48:34] <twkozlowski>	 Certainly it is.
[17:52:54] <Krenair>	 Carmela, the global rename was always going to be a mess
[17:53:10] <Krenair>	 The current version certainly sounds a lot better than my old one
[17:53:30] <Krenair>	 What could PFS break for users?
[17:58:08] <twkozlowski>	 Wikipedia.
[18:04:24] <Krenair>	 twkozlowski, how specific
[18:07:09] <twkozlowski>	 I don't think Regular People care about anything specific :-)
[18:07:24] <twkozlowski>	 It's just Wikipedia is Down, or Wikipedia is Up
[18:09:24] <Krenair>	 twkozlowski, you think PFS is going to make wikipedia "down"?
[18:09:36] <twkozlowski>	 You think Puppet can make Wikipedia down? It did.
[18:44:06] <Carmela>	 twkozlowski: Right, not biting the messenger.
[18:47:16] <twkozlowski>	 wma.wmflabs.org, you suck.
[18:49:32] <Carmela>	 I think Labs is down/having issues.
[18:50:22] <twkozlowski>	 Yeah, I reported that on their channel, too
[18:50:56] <YuviPanda>	 Carmela: we're looking at it
[18:51:11] <Carmela>	 I'm not!
[19:36:51] <ineditable>	 Hi there, I'm currently investigating why some wikis decided to link to external sites with relative protocols (example ://twitter/username) instead of choosing the secure version. I completely understand why *Internal* links chose to use relative protocols, I don't want to discuss the issue here. But I'm writing here because I cannot find any type of information about this (a discussion or...
[19:36:53] <ineditable>	 ...consensus to understand the motivations to do so)
[19:37:01] <ineditable>	 Can you please guide me? Thanks!
[19:38:12] <ineditable>	 I've the impression that there is some global confusion going on with http vs https for external links, and I would like to clear my doubts reading some info about it
[19:39:04] <Carmela>	 ineditable: Hi.
[19:39:12] <Carmela>	 The confusion comes from there not being a clear answer.
[19:39:43] <Carmela>	 Protocol-relative links (such as //www.example.com/ ) are nice because they keep the user using the same protocol.
[19:39:50] <MatmaRex>	 ineditable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_111#As_WP_uses_HTTPS.2C_should_.28some.29_external_links.2C_too.3F ?
[19:39:50] <Carmela>	 And using them avoids cache fragmentation.
[19:40:02] <Carmela>	 Because they can be used for HTTP and HTTPS simultaneously.
[19:40:09] <Carmela>	 But there's a slow shift toward HTTPS by default.
[19:40:30] <Carmela>	 Which may or may not be the appropriate solution in some cases.
[19:40:51] <Krenair>	 I think we should just use https wherever possible
[19:41:14] <Carmela>	 Right, but wherever possible is tricky.
[19:42:51] <Nemo_bis>	 Relevant quip: [Relative URIs] They're not not recommended, it just says their usage is rare. Which is a statement that was true in '05, and which we made false in '11. –RoanKattouw
[19:43:03] <ineditable>	 Excellent MatmaRex thank you! :) 
[19:43:07] <Nemo_bis>	 Three years late to the party: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/03/native-https-support-enabled-for-all-wikimedia-foundation-wikis/
[19:43:38] <Nemo_bis>	 Recent bug: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52253
[19:47:23] <ineditable>	 Well Thank you for the linked page, I'll need time to read it;  I just want to share now that I think we should consider using https for *external* links whenever possible for the privacy and security of users and wikipedians
[19:51:55] <Nemo_bis>	 Yes, the idea is not new and is tracked in the bug above.
[20:05:42] <ineditable>	 The bug seems to be about the (poor) support in browsers, and appears to be related to internal links. I'm more interested to know the motivations from part of editors choosing :// over the secure version for external links (think ://twitter.com/username). /They/ seem to think that is good, and I consider it harmful). Looks to me there is some misinterpretation and common belief generated...
[20:05:44] <ineditable>	 ...from that.
[20:06:37] <ineditable>	 That is just my opinion of course, I think there should be some new discussion trying to get some guiding policies with well structured information to help people comprehend the issue.
[20:07:20] <ineditable>	 Any idea how can I try to rise that discussion?
[20:07:48] <Nemo_bis>	 Learning to search bugzilla would be a good first step.
[20:10:27] <twkozlowski>	 Nemo_bis nails it.
[20:19:30] <ineditable>	 Most bugs there are about interwiki links, the think I'm talking about is more about an editorial issue than a technical one
[20:20:29] <Nemo_bis>	 Search better.
[20:21:27] <ineditable>	 Trying.. :)
[20:32:28] <ineditable>	 Well, I cannot find it, searched for External links, relative protocol, secure external links, and some others..
[20:42:25] <Carmela>	 ineditable: The easiest way to find a bug in Bugzilla is to file a new bug.
[20:42:32] <Carmela>	 Someone will mark it as a duplicate if it's a duplicate. :-)
[20:43:18] <ineditable>	 Oh no, that's not appreciated .. I'm trying to contribute not to let someone else work for me.. I prefer to ask for help directly
[20:44:06] <ineditable>	 I cannot understand how bugzilla will answer my question of, why this template https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plantilla:Twitter&action=edit does not use the "https" for example, and is not a technical issue, is an editorial issue
[20:45:38] <ineditable>	 Once I give up trying to find an answer, I may open a bug requesting to use https for external links always (Even under http)
[20:59:33] <Platonides>	 ineditable, it could easily be changed to https
[20:59:47] <Platonides>	 indeed, it is an editorial issue
[21:00:11] <Platonides>	 so this channel can't help you :)
[21:33:04] <ineditable>	 Thanks, I sort of disagree, while it is an editorial issue, I think the best people to help solve it are the tech leaders, they will be able to educate people and spread "recommended best practices" to a wider audience. This for example in the *non-wiki* links from this page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map 
[21:35:29] <ineditable>	 I'm a new users, and Im not sure if this is indeed the right channel, I would like to raise the issue, let people talk, share pros and cons, and then well, apply what's better. But currenlty the answers I get to my questions, are disappointing, because lack consensus/discussion/bases, generating more doubts than anything else. .That's just my opinion of course.. :) 
[21:35:38] <ineditable>	 * user