[06:00:57] Nemo_bis: hello; Yesterday, I didn't realize you wanted to send your message right away :) Thank you for including the link to the cleanup page. [06:09:31] guillom: Oh, yes, it's something I wanted to do in July so I took the opportunity to not be lazy [06:09:45] (Of course that's a lie, I was procrastinating something else.) [08:19:29] [[Tech]]; ArchiverBot; Bot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 30 days) to [[Tech/Archives/2014]].; https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=9927920&oldid=9918908&rcid=5595840 [09:52:21] euh.. [09:52:23] 18498ms (PHP5) [09:53:45] and i have quite a few raw pages that return 500s [09:57:05] (Cannot contact the database server: Too many connections (10.64.48.21)) <-- :S [09:57:22] (trying to load en.wikipedia.org/wiki) [09:57:42] ... yay, it lives. [13:43:39] (Cannot contact the database server: Can't connect to MySQL server on '10.64.48.27' (4) (10.64.48.27)) [13:43:49] in prod? [13:44:09] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93Germany_relations [13:44:27] oh s1 [13:44:28] :P [13:45:41] Some database issues? [13:45:57] yep, known [13:48:54] umm [13:49:16] yes [13:55:28] maybe guillom wants to tweet about it [13:55:53] It's now working for me [13:56:38] Ah, I got it, MediaWiki wants me to listen to the Queen. When was the speech [13:57:18] So... what should I tweet about? :) [13:57:38] We are having some database issues... blah blah [13:58:13] From what I see in the operations channel, it's on its way to recovery? [14:04:19] sure, since one hour ago :P [14:11:54] ok now fellas [14:11:59] is the srvr working? [14:12:26] Tokvo: who is srvr? [14:12:28] Tokvo, the site is for me, but the labsdb still isn't. [14:12:35] server [14:12:42] which of those hundreds? [16:13:28] already up? [16:15:48] heyy [16:26:16] andre__: are servers already up? [16:30:35] ^^ Seems to be all better now, from what I can see in our monitoring graphs [17:59:11] guillom: Hmm. For https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News/2014/39 I'm not sure about putting the VE items below the "Future Software Changes" section. [17:59:40] guillom: For one thing, some of them aren't future software changes at all… [18:00:51] guillom: Also, the priority ordering of those bullets is… poor. [18:01:12] James_F: I checked a few of them and they were all in wmf22. I can re-check if you'd like [18:01:28] James_F: for VE? I don't think I changed the priority :) [18:01:42] guillom: "There were two bad bugs messing up articles in some browsers. We fixed the bugs and updated the sites. [9] [10] " [18:01:47] guillom: That's wmf20. [18:01:59] James_F: Fair enough; any others? [18:02:26] guillom: VE was always its own section intentionally because of the mix. We can merge it into "Future software changes", but then we should actively discuss that change. [18:02:33] guillom: For "Future software changes”, Phabricator is totally mis-placed. [18:03:19] James_F: I'm not sure I understand; VE is still in its own section..? [18:03:49] guillom: Moved to be part of the Future software changes section… [18:04:14] James_F: err, no; they're at the same level. [18:04:37] guillom: Sure, except you then wrote "These changes are coming with the new version of MediaWiki:” which makes it a sub-section. [18:05:13] guillom: Just because it's not written in wikitext as a subsection, it's still really obvious that it's an (implicit) sub-section. [18:05:38] James_F: My goal was simply to make it clear that when we say "now" in VE, for most of them it isn't "now", it's "after the deployment train". I'm happy to move the already-deployed items above the "those are coming with the train" sentence. [18:05:44] guillom: I think VE changes might well be merged into the appropriate sections, but if we're doing that we should actually do it. [18:06:22] By the time people read it, it's "today" for most wikis, "four days ago" for a couple, and "in two days' time" for Wikipedias. [18:06:49] Really we should put them in with actual dates for clarity. [18:07:24] James_F: Well, the dates are in the item about the deployment train, which is why I added that sentence :) [18:07:42] guillom: Compared to the rule, it's TL;DR though. [18:08:03] James_F: So, what solution would you prefer? [18:08:19] guillom: I don't know. I just don't think we should make big structural changes without talking about them first. [18:08:44] guillom: Maybe instead having "Coming to non-Wikipedias on 23 September" and "Coming to Wikipedias on 25 September" sections? [18:08:56] And an "other" section for things that don't fit. [18:09:34] James_F: so, removing the VE-specific section? [18:09:59] James_F: How about just editing the VE items to have some in the present tense and others in the future tense? [18:11:28] I used to do that. [18:11:35] But odder said it made it more complex to translate [18:11:40] So we settled on "now". [18:11:48] I can go back to the old style. [18:12:03] It does make it harder to translate, but "now" is misleading. [18:12:14] There's always a balance to be struck between simplicity and accuracy [18:12:20] Yeah. [18:12:38] We already have some future tense in the newsletter, I think we can have it in the VE section :) [18:12:43] * James_F fiddles. [18:13:03] James_F: As a side note, I don't understand this edit: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tech%2FNews%2F2014%2F39&diff=9932749&oldid=9932415 [18:13:16] Oh, wow, that broke things. [18:13:17] Bah. [18:13:43] * James_F fixes. [18:13:51] Thanks :) [18:14:13] James_F: Did I look in the wrong place for the shortcuts? I saw Ctrl+Shift+3 in https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/160174/1/src/ui/ve.ui.TriggerRegistry.js [18:14:55] guillom: You looked in the right place but at the wrong commit. That's why I was going to update… [18:15:49] James_F: Ah! ok. I saw that you changed 3 for 6 but didn't see why. [18:20:43] guillom: How is this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tech%2FNews%2F2014%2F39&diff=9932992&oldid=9932415 [18:21:10] (Eurgh, it shuffled some of the translation comments. Bloody Translate extension.) [18:22:08] guillom: Basically, putting it in "coming this week" lets us say "now" but not say now. [18:22:31] James_F: It cost us 5 points of readability :) [18:22:40] guillom: … by what measure? [18:23:11] James_F: https://readability-score.com/ ; we were at ~73, now ~68. But 68 is good enough for this week; we can iterate for next week. [18:23:22] guillom: That's probably adding "VisualEditor" which is a long word to five sentences. [18:23:37] https://readability-score.com/ is nifty [18:23:44] James_F: Maybe we'll just revert to the "old" format next week. [18:24:12] guillom: http://www.hemingwayapp.com/ is my preferred choice. [18:24:25] guillom: And that flags three issues, none of them in my copy. ;-) [18:25:09] James_F: I usually use both of them, readability-score for the Reading ease, and Hemingway to see red / orange flags [18:25:24] I confess I didn't use Hemingway today, because the reading ease was so good [18:27:24] James_F: I'd like to mark the page for translation since translators are working on it. Are you satisfied with its current format? [18:30:07] guillom: I am, yeah. [18:30:11] If you're happy. :-) [18:30:46] James_F: It's 8:30pm on a Friday night and I'm fighting with Python to generate thousands of HTML pages. I'm happy with the tech newsletter :P [18:31:07] guillom: :-) Have fun! [18:31:38] James_F: Thanks! And Sorry for changing the format; I thought it was a minor change. I'll discuss it more next time. [18:33:32] :-) [20:20:51] https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/BugTriage-mwlib [20:57:37] Nemo_bis: oh that's impressive, thanks [20:57:43] Related: I have "Potentially have a bugday on new PDF renderer (after more bugs have been fixed, according to cscott)" on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/Task_list#October_2014 [21:00:45] ok