[15:57:28] <ferdbold>	 When amending a commit on gerrit, should I always try to rebase of the most recent commit on master before pushing to gerrit, or it doesn't matter?
[15:58:41] <ferdbold>	 (context: I started to work on my feature on a local branch, and since starting work, new commits have emerged on master. Should I rebase ASAP when that happens or should I wait until my patchset on gerrit gets approved)
[15:58:59] <James_F>	 ferdbold: Rebasing from time to time is a good idea.
[15:59:00] <andrewbogott>	 It’s easier for reviewers if the base remains the same for all patch versions.  Of course you’ll have to rebase eventually to merge, but it’s probably most polite if you don’t do that until the last minute.
[15:59:10] <andrewbogott>	 But either way is fine :)
[15:59:31] <James_F>	 ferdbold: But don't rebase just for the hell of it; if there's an need for manual rebasing it's better to do it earlier rather than later.
[15:59:53] <andrewbogott>	 Yeah, if there are conflicts then you should rebase immediately.  Otherwise, delay.
[16:00:00] <ferdbold>	 Okay, thank you both
[16:00:02] <James_F>	 ferdbold: If it's just an auto-rebase leave it. Also, never mix rebases and actual code changes in the same patchset.
[16:00:08] <James_F>	 ferdbold: 'Cos that's a real pain to code review. :-)
[16:01:21] <ferdbold>	 Follow-up question: If I want to start work on a new feature in a new branch, but that work depends on previous work that's not yet merged on master, how should I setup my new branch so that it includes both the latest master and my patchset on gerrit?
[16:02:06] <ferdbold>	 My guess would be to create the branch under the patchset one and merge master into it, but that creates a merge commit that  probably don't want to send to gerrit
[16:11:55] <parent5446>	 ferdbold: You'd need to rebase your original patchset, and then just put additional commits on top of it.
[16:13:13] <ferdbold>	 parent5446: Okay so everything would be on top of master then?
[16:13:23] <parent5446>	 Yep
[16:14:34] <ferdbold>	 Okay great, thanks a lot!
[17:26:47] <Luke081515>	 Hello, is here someone, who knows more about MediaWiki message delivery? At dewp we got a problem with this bot
[17:28:24] <legoktm>	 Luke081515: hi
[17:28:29] <Luke081515>	 hi
[17:28:32] <Luke081515>	 The Problem:
[17:28:46] <Luke081515>	 The Bot don't work. He only deliver message sometimes
[17:29:00] <Luke081515>	 There are 136 Message to deliver at the moment
[17:29:17] <Luke081515>	 See here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beiträge/MediaWiki_message_delivery for contribs
[17:31:17] <legoktm>	 MassMessageJob: 136 queued; 0 claimed (0 active, 0 abandoned); 0 delayed
[17:31:20] <legoktm>	 so they're queued...
[17:31:53] <Luke081515>	 but when he will start? He already start at sometime, but he stopped at 17:43
[17:33:03] <legoktm>	 trying to figure that out :)
[17:45:18] <ToAruShiroiNeko>	 legoktm so you and yuvi have a secret agreement huh?
[17:45:27] <legoktm>	 ToAruShiroiNeko: ?
[17:45:42] <ToAruShiroiNeko>	 legopanda yuviktm?
[17:48:20] <qwerb>	 Hey doesn anyone know if these apis http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Main_page require us to access at less than 1 request per half a second also, as per robots.txt?
[17:49:46] <qwerb>	 anyone ?
[17:56:37] <qwerb>	 Hey doesn anyone know if these apis http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Main_page require us to access at less than 1 request per half a second also, as per robots.txt?
[17:57:06] <legoktm>	 qwerb: hi
[17:57:16] <qwerb>	 hi
[17:57:30] <legoktm>	 qwerb: have you read https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Etiquette ?
[17:58:22] <qwerb>	 ah, just what i was looking for
[17:58:23] <qwerb>	 thanks :)
[19:47:34] <Josve05a>	 On bz it was possible to tag which version of a program the bug was related to (e.g. Huggle 3.1.2) Is that possible as well for Phab, or do Ihaveto typeitmanuallyin the description (meaning there is no sort by version options)?
[20:13:52] <marktraceur>	 Josve05a: I guess you can tag it with a version, if version tags exist... :(
[20:14:59] <Josve05a>	 marktraceur: AWB does not have version tags atm, and therefore the awb-workboard is a bit cluttery, and no real info on how old the bugs are, unless you read them all...
[20:16:49] <Josve05a>	 Any way I can create AWB-version-tags?
[20:24:23] <marktraceur>	 Uhhh
[20:24:26] <marktraceur>	 Ask someone nicely maybe
[20:25:30] <Josve05a>	 Have you ever seen me ask someone for anything, nicely? :P
[20:26:28] <Josve05a>	 Keegan: Hello. COuld you please help me on how I should tag tasks on Phabricator with version numbers, such as with tags? Please?
[21:51:49] <Keegan>	 Josve05a: I'm not familiar with version number tagging?
[21:51:58] <Keegan>	 I just know how to tag normally
[21:53:22] <Josve05a>	 Well, currently tags such as "editing department 2014-15 q4 blockers" exists, can't be that much harder to start using (creating) "AWB version foo"-tags?
[21:54:02] <Josve05a>	 To help with sorting and weeding out old bug reports.
[21:54:38] <Josve05a>	 (all bug reports has been migrated from on-wiki to Phabricator, therefore they all have the same creation date on Phabricator)
[21:56:02] <Josve05a>	 (similar tag could be "mw-1.26-release")
[21:59:51] <Keegan>	 Josve05a: I think one of the Phabricator pros can probably help you out in #wikimedia-devtools :)
[22:00:08] <Josve05a>	 thanks