[17:15:16] Error: The stylesheet http://wikimediafoundation.org/tracker/bannerImpression.php?total=true&site=Commons&utm_campaign=test&utm_source=test was not loaded because its MIME type, "text/html", is not "text/css". [17:15:20] Source File: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheDJ_alt [17:15:23] Line: 0 [17:16:40] *RoanKattouw wonders where kaldari is when you need him [17:16:54] and how do i enable jquery ui, because it doesn't work atm for me on monobook. [17:17:09] Exactly what are you doing? [17:17:32] currently the script uses importScriptURI('http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/extensions/UsabilityInitiative/js/js2stopgap/jui.combined.min.js'); [17:17:43] which is probably not correct :D [17:17:53] RoanKattouw, just told him to get online [17:18:34] RoanKattouw: this is for https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js [17:19:36] RoanKattouw: looking at it, i think that maybe it is missing the jquery ui css...... [17:19:37] Could be [17:20:09] Yeah that's probably it [17:20:17] JUI CSS is loaded by UsabilityInitiative [17:20:31] This'll be peanuts with a properly integrated ResourceLoader [17:21:05] kaldari: Error: The stylesheet http://wikimediafoundation.org/tracker/bannerImpression.php?total=true&site=Commons&utm_campaign=test&utm_source=test was not loaded because its MIME type, "text/html", is not "text/css". [17:21:30] whoever coded the banner needs to make sure that the tag for that stylesheet includes the type="text/css" attribute [17:21:34] kaldari: on commons, anon autoconfirmed user, FF 3.5.8 [17:21:49] (Continuing from other channel: the Content-Type: HTTP header is wrong too) [17:21:53] I'll try to figure out what banner is causing it [17:22:11] bannerImpresson.php should set Content-Type properly [17:22:50] true, Nimish created it, I'll let him know [17:25:02] hmm, someone may have already fixed it [17:25:55] thedj: If you see the error again, if there's anyway you can capture the source of the banner that is loaded, that would be helpful [17:26:08] it's a hidden test banner [17:26:25] but you should be able to pull the source with Firebug [17:28:47] If bannerImpression.php is written sanely the banner should not matter for the Content-Type [17:29:16] true [17:29:38] Oh so bannerImpression.php is the impression counting thing? Yeah I remember Nimish talking about that [17:29:48] it will mostly be obsolete as soon as the new banner loader is in place [17:30:03] bannerImpression.php is an interim hack that Nimish put in place [17:30:52] speaking of, I was wondering if there was any possibility of getting this revision reviewed: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/70517 in addition to my stuff for the Monday deploy [17:31:10] I was just starting VariablePage review [17:31:17] So let me squeeze that one in right now [17:31:23] no problem [17:31:56] I can't deploy my fix to MessageCache.php until that rev is approved as well [17:31:59] kaldari: i still get the error. [17:32:18] thedj: I'll take a look [17:33:12] i can't find where it is comming from, firebug won't show any contents [17:33:39] of note is also that it is in monobook. [17:34:00] I see the error [17:34:14] It looks OK to me but I would feel better if Nikerabbit looked at it [17:34:19] I'll get Nimish to fix it. I just don't know where he is at the moment [17:34:43] RoanKattouw: I'll poke him then [17:35:03] RoanKattouw: got the css to load. works just fine (until the next jquery update of course :D ) [17:35:29] Single-revision review? :-/ [17:35:53] I can't wait until we have jQuery 1.4. It will make the banner loader much simpler. [17:35:59] How is that [17:36:09] Because of the jQuery 1.3 bug? [17:36:22] because I'll be able to use jQuery's jsonp stuff instead of rolling my own [17:36:25] Right [17:36:30] Wait is that 1.4-only? [17:36:34] I thought 1.3 supported that [17:36:44] no, but it can't be cachable until 1.4 [17:36:51] So well in fact that it adds it to places where it really shouldn't, something Nimish discovered [17:36:52] Oh bleh [17:36:59] I think they have basic support for it in 1.2 even [17:37:03] Oh *that's* why it's doing that maybe [17:37:19] Adding &_=randomHexValue to deliberately have it not cache [17:37:32] well, actually that's not the issue specifically [17:37:38] Oh [17:37:38] you can turn that off in 1.3 [17:37:46] Is it the generation of random function names? [17:38:00] the issue is that you can't override the randomly-generated callback function name until 1.4 [17:38:12] yeah [17:38:30] or at least I couldn't figure out how to get it to work in 1,3 [17:38:49] there's an override parameter in 1.4 [17:39:24] jsonpCallback [17:39:59] You can do it but jQuery sabotages yuo [17:40:11] yeah [17:40:18] I mean you can define a function in the global space yourself, then dynamically add a "); [17:40:49] and I have to disable the &_=randomhexstuff sabotaging :) [17:41:05] Nimish just used DOM functions directly [17:41:06] with $.ajaxSetup({ cache: true }); [17:41:52] or you can do it with wikibits apparently [17:42:46] I wish I knew where Nimish was hiding [17:44:00] I have no idea where the code for http://wikimediafoundation.org/tracker/bannerImpression.php actually lives [17:45:29] Apparently Nimish is on his way into the office now [17:52:29] kaldari: Nikerabbit says that one rev is OK. I marked it fixme for aesthetic reasons (see comments), but it's deployable [17:53:25] cool, I'll see about fixing it today [17:56:06] Is there any incentive for full code review if single revisions can just be pushed through? [17:56:27] What exactly do you mean by that Ashlee ? [17:56:35] these revisions have to go live on Monday [17:56:57] since they are for the fundraising test [17:57:01] RoanKattouw: I mean that the "cut in line" approach is now escaping from just the extensions/ directory. [17:57:01] Ashlee: Are you implying we can take any old revision, look at it, conclude it's OK and just throw it live on WMF? [17:57:16] RoanKattouw: I'm saying that that appears to be what you're doing. [17:57:18] The latter step doesn't really work that way because deployment is way behind on trunk [17:57:35] Well yeah because fundraising code is actually being deployed regularly [17:57:53] It's never out of sync with trunk much, usually a week tops [17:57:55] It's being deployed regularly because it has the equivalent of an EZPass... [17:58:10] This is how all of MW is supposed to work [17:58:26] Small, incremental deployments [17:58:35] Which requires frequent code review and small backlogs [17:58:40] We currently have neither for MW core [17:58:54] Ashlee: the current cut-in-line situation is unfortunate, but neccessary due to the priority of fundraising for the foundation [17:59:01] Enabling people to bypass the line eliminates any incentive to fix the line. [17:59:02] But we do have that situation for smaller components like fundraising things and a few other WMF-developed things, mostly thanks to me [17:59:23] kaldari: Well, it's a shit situation for everyone else. :-) [17:59:30] I want the line to become so short that people won't even be thinking of it as a line anymore [17:59:33] Ashlee: I agree [17:59:45] Irony is, in order to fix the line we need fundraising to cut in line :) [17:59:58] If you told your boss that nobody would deploy the code until the line was short, I think suddenly there might be more resources for that. [18:00:12] you really, truly need to move off that line of thinking. [18:00:18] I think I suddenly I might be out of a job [18:00:26] (minus one "I") [18:00:28] RoanKattouw: never. [18:00:42] Hah, yeah, you're one of the few doing deployment and they love you. [18:00:48] I don't think you're going anywhere. [18:00:52] If I tell Danese I won't deploy any more code until she clones Tim? [18:01:07] Ashlee: Unfortunately, we have a somewhat broken code-review pipeline in the immediate-term. Tim is having a baby and Mark is out of commission, so the current situation isn't so smooth. [18:01:15] I think Tim being the only one capable of code review is a myth. [18:01:17] Mark is not relevant to code review [18:01:21] It is [18:01:31] Like Danese said during office hours yesterday, we need to engage more people [18:01:52] Ashlee seems to think that all the problems can be magically fixed just by Danese or Erik saying "do it" and that's just naive. [18:01:53] I'm a good example of how you can take a guy and have him review+deploy small components and still allow him to have a life [18:01:54] I don't see many people being engaged by some code being pushed to the front of the line. I just see a lot of aggravated people standing in line. [18:02:14] I agree that it's a problem and that it should be fixed [18:02:15] jorm: I think there are a lot more resources than there used to be, but far less progress. [18:02:35] Ashlee: we are definitely reaching out to people [18:02:40] jorm: So until I can wrap my head around that, I'll be naive/lost/confused as ever. [18:02:41] no one is saying that the code review situation is one that shouldn't be fixed. [18:02:48] I know. [18:03:24] I don't mean to hijack this channel. I just wanted to point out that the single-rev push is now escaping /trunk/extensions/. [18:03:27] I, too, think we have too few people in general engineering relative to features engineering [18:03:33] people have finite personal resources, and a limited number of things that they can address at a time. [18:03:45] We don't really do single-rev pushes much for exts, more like single-week pushes [18:04:03] Ashlee: /truck/extensions/ will occassionally have dependencies in core [18:04:14] kaldari: It's a slippery slope. [18:04:25] Coming from someone who usually hates that line of reasoning. ;-) [18:04:32] Ashlee: I very purposely do not deploy random API fixes to WMF [18:04:38] Even though people ask me for it [18:04:46] Ashlee: I don't think so, is anyone requesting to cut-in-line on core code for anything other than dependancies? [18:04:52] RoanKattouw: I don't believe more money will fix anything, as you suggested above. [18:05:10] I didn't suggest that, I was just mentioning a tangentially related pet peeve of mine [18:05:20] kaldari: Right now it's "oh my god fundraising is the most important thing in the world". Yesterday it was "oh my god ArticleAssessment." It goes on and on. [18:05:27] Ashlee: even for fundraising code, I had to wait 2 months to get my first code review :P [18:05:33] Things need to happen and I think Danese has some good ideas based on the office hours log [18:05:34] Roan, i forget: are you Features or General? [18:05:37] RoanKattouw: You said... Irony is, in order to fix the line we need fundraising to cut in line :) [18:05:41] Features, technically [18:05:44] As Alolita is my EPM [18:05:55] kaldari: As though that's a record. :-) [18:06:00] Ashlee: Well we can't fix the problem without money [18:06:17] Simply throwing money at it won't solve it, you need more than that [18:06:21] There is money. And lots of staff. [18:06:23] But you still need said money [18:06:27] Right, that's my point. [18:06:28] There is for this year [18:06:39] But we need money for next year too [18:06:40] Well, that's good, because the code review backlog exists now. :0) [18:06:42] :-) [18:06:50] Right [18:07:18] I'm sure you'd be happy if our code review backlog disappears in Jan 2011, the foundation goes bankrupt in March and no code review gets done beyond that point ;) [18:07:21] RoanKattouw, you have a life? [18:07:23] I'm not saying I don't think fundraising code development isn't important. But there has to be some sort of incentive to deal with the rest of code review. [18:07:31] guillom: I meant school :) [18:07:44] Ah. Thought so :) [18:07:56] RoanKattouw: I'd be thrilled if WMF were forced to cut back, absolutely. [18:07:56] Ashlee: You should talk to Danese about this. Like I said, some of the ideas she voiced yesterday sounded good to me [18:08:09] Okay. [18:08:19] You're coming to the DC thing, right? [18:08:27] I think so. [18:08:28] I'm assuming Danese will be there [18:08:36] Even though she probably won't hack MW [18:08:37] Doing code review, I assume. [18:08:41] Hah, right. [18:08:46] I think she /should/ be there [18:08:54] So community devs can talk to her [18:09:04] what's the incentive for doing code review? so that we can have someone complain that their shitty, bad-idea of an extension isn't getting deployed fast enough? [18:09:15] Ashlee: So you think the idea of WMF setting up offices in Brazil and India is a bad idea? [18:09:21] It's so we don't run stone-age code on the cluster [18:09:40] but that's not what a lot of people are complaining about when they say "not enough code review happens" [18:09:48] Ashlee: Also, ArticleAssessment was another grant thing. We don't really wanna do those any more in the future [18:10:00] That's true [18:10:04] kaldari: Mo' money, mo' problems. The idea for offices in India and Brazil are all focused on increased _participation_, not necessarily better content quality or better community. [18:10:05] But it is when I am complaining about that [18:10:17] they're complaining about "i want my extension deployed on wikipedia". [18:10:22] I know [18:10:23] RoanKattouw: I know it was grant-based. That doesn't change how it was treated, though. [18:10:40] But don't confuse misguided complains with legit complaints just because they happen to complain about the same thing (jorm) [18:10:49] jorm: After two or three years, those complaints are pretty damn valid. [18:11:09] kaldari: We can move to #wikimedia if you want to continue on the "five-year strategy." :-) [18:11:18] Ashlee: I think better content quality and community are the perview of the community. Better participation is where the Foundation can help more than the community, IMO. [18:11:18] Though I imagine you have other things to do. ;-) [18:12:02] Well, I think that's crazy. WMF needs to focus less on creating a large social network and more on creating something of value. Otherwise it has nothing for the child in Africa except a million asteroid stubs. [18:12:10] I agree that the Foundation should help with quality and community, but I also think participation is important [18:12:38] You can disagree with the weight being given to each or the order in which they're tackled, but I think you'll agree that they're all important [18:13:00] I do agree that they're all important. But I think WMF would say one is far more important than the other two. [18:13:07] And a lot of evidence backs this up. [18:13:07] anyway, I think we all agree that Code Review needs to be improved :) [18:13:12] Aye. [18:13:22] Oh yeah [18:13:31] I was just saying today that I want a review queue feature [18:13:43] That automatically drops revs in my queue based on path [18:13:52] And that I can add/remove revs from/to [18:13:53] that would be cool [18:14:00] I also want multiple people to be able to sign off on a rev [18:14:16] that's been talked about [18:14:31] the multiple-person reviews I mean [18:14:34] I think the queue thing might be a nice DC thing [18:15:00] *RoanKattouw goes to log it in Bugzilla [18:18:53] Nimish is working on the MIME type bug now [18:19:12] thedj: Nimish is here now [18:20:59] thedj: is there a bugzilla bug open on it? [18:21:46] No [18:21:50] I don't think [18:22:11] hi RoanKattouw [18:22:15] you are all mine as of today [18:22:27] but not tomorrow :) [18:22:31] you also get lots of love for pulling things off yesterday [18:22:37] kaldari_away: I might loan him to you [18:23:22] I am now doing CR [18:23:30] on what? [18:23:35] CentralNotice [18:23:42] ah, ok [18:23:47] Also writing a bug report on how I want CR to have personal review queues [18:23:53] Could be a nice hackathon project [18:23:54] reviewing centralNotice tomorrow is fine too, whatever works [18:24:15] as long as it's before Monday [18:24:22] OK then [18:24:31] I could postpone that to the weekend then [18:24:36] sure [18:24:40] Let me just finish this bug report and I'll be right with you, TrevorParscal [18:24:46] k [18:24:46] although it doesn't give me much time to fix things :) [18:25:25] anyway, I'm really going away now. Have to work on CiviCRM issue [18:26:43] jorm: extensions review is just one of the many problems that having virtually no code review causes [18:29:15] jorm: your attitude about this whole issue is, quite frankly, insulting [18:29:22] TrevorParscal: All yours now. Although I have lots of RL CR to catch up with too :( [18:29:40] ok [18:29:48] roberthl: Which attitude from that half-hour-old discussion are you talking about exactly? [18:30:12] http://eiximenis.wikimedia.org/TeamParscalKattouw [18:30:32] haha [18:30:34] Nice! [18:30:57] e.g "what's the incentive for doing code review? so that we can have someone complain that their shitty, bad-idea of an extension isn't getting deployed fast enough?" [18:32:39] Yes, that is insulting [18:34:16] TrevorParscal: OK shall I just start poking at ESI then? [18:35:07] yes [18:35:28] *robla reads the backlog [18:37:13] Yeah, i'm a pretty insulting guy. [18:40:34] roberthl: Ashlee: ping me whenever this subject comes up on IRC. this is one of the problems I'm working on [18:41:04] robla: "This" being code review queue? [18:41:10] yes [18:41:39] we're figuring out who to shuffle where to get more eyes on it in the short term [18:42:36] one thing that you two can help out with: I'm probably not as well-educated on our code review process as I should be [18:43:39] robla: Are you going to DC? That'd allow you to meet a number of community devs face-to-face (more or less the same reason I said Danese should come above, although it's more obviously true for her) [18:43:55] RoanKattouw: yup, I will [18:44:08] Nice [18:46:26] Ashlee: what's a particularly egregious example of something that had to wait way too long, but finally made it through? I'd like to talk through an example [18:46:35] robla: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_review | http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_review_guide [18:46:54] yup, I've read those [18:46:58] robla: Anything in the backlog currently? Nothing's making it through right now. [18:47:19] If you want examples of extensions that wikis have been waiting for for years, I can probably dig some up. [18:47:31] But again, those don't meet "finally made it through." [18:47:46] well, let's talk through one of those examples [18:50:01] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20246 [18:50:03] Read that. [18:50:34] Oh that one [18:53:28] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18788 is another fun one. [18:53:39] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18461 [18:53:56] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17503 [18:54:04] Those are in descending order of readiness. [18:55:32] RoanKattouw: There's also this crazy-ass practice of enabling certain extensions only on certain sites... [18:55:39] And requiring a separate request for each new installation. [18:55:48] Yeah there's usually reasons for that [18:55:53] DPL is a good example [18:55:59] I understand that DPL can't go on the large sites, but why can't it be enabled on every small site? [18:56:01] Although we could easily enable DPL on all wikinews wikis I guess [18:56:07] Or all Wiktionaries. [18:56:15] Wikinews uses DPL too [18:56:32] There's no sharp line between 'large' and 'small' [18:56:41] It's intentionally creating paperwork and process for people, e.g. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8886 [18:56:49] I agree [18:56:55] I think RobH would agree too [18:57:02] Since he's the one dealing with said paperwork [18:57:02] I'm sure he would. :-) [18:57:17] Well, the communities are, too. They have to gather consensus and file the bug. [18:57:35] there's the ABC extension too, I don't know what the bug number is [18:57:48] Aye. I think that was written by a root, too... [18:58:09] River [18:58:27] I find it kind of baffling that she didn't just enable it herself in all this time. [18:58:35] She may not be allowed to, dunno. [18:59:08] the Transliterator extension: en.wikitionary would be the first WMF production deployment, correct? [18:59:13] I'm not sure River even has the required access [18:59:38] Not sure that he's a root on WMF anymore [18:59:47] Either way, I don't think he actually ever deployed MW code before [19:00:24] root should be root. I'm fairly sure she still needs it for the Toolserver. [19:00:27] So I hope she still has it. [19:00:38] Anyway, robla: yes, I believe so. [19:01:10] root != root [19:01:15] Some roots are just ops-only people [19:01:26] Who don't necessarily even know PHP [19:01:45] I think we're both talking about theoretical capability versus social capability. [19:02:34] Right [19:02:42] Theoretically, roots can do whatever the hell they want [19:02:52] Whether they're qualified to is a different matter [19:04:59] "and it's root root root for the home team"....everybody sing along! [19:05:08] someone pinged me [19:05:11] RoanKattouw: [19:05:12] ;p [19:05:34] robla: Were you still reading that bug or have you become thoroughly depressed by the current state of affairs? [19:05:58] Ashlee: some reading, and throwing together a Bugzilla query [19:05:59] river has root [19:06:08] river didnt enable stuff without consensus because she knows better [19:06:20] Does Brion still have root? [19:06:47] i hope not :D [19:06:52] i am going to say no [19:06:59] and ask brion not to test it. [19:07:04] brion: pls dont test it ;] [19:07:09] hehe [19:07:12] So, here's all of the open "needs-review" bugs: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&keywords=need-review&keywords_type=allwords&query_format=advanced&order=bug_id&query_based_on= [19:07:23] ordered by age [19:07:35] Well, community members (Domas, Riverj, JeLuF) have root... not sure why Brion would be an exception. [19:07:57] Ordered by bug number. [19:07:58] Because he doesn't use it anyway [19:08:05] Ashlee: if you had your druthers, would we cycle through the list purely by age, or is there some other ordering? [19:08:05] since i'm not currently active in server administration, by default i shouldn't have an active root account [19:08:07] So it's just another laptop someone can steal to get root access [19:08:52] if i said "hey i'm gonna pitch in with server admin again!" i'm sure folks'd have no problem with giving me the current pass [19:09:55] Fair enough. [19:10:12] robla: I think triaging is fine, not necessarily by bug age. [19:11:04] one side note about triaging: what's the best way to do that in a way that doesn't subject us to bugzilla edit wars? [19:11:29] I'm not sure what you're asking. [19:11:59] Bugzilla edit wars happen very infrequently [19:12:09] well, for example, let's take a look at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189 [19:12:33] RoanKattouw: It's not usually war, though I re-open a fair number of bugs. [19:12:41] That's true [19:12:44] WONTFIX has a habit of pissing me off. [19:12:48] (I think the reason why BZ edit wars are infrequent is because we haven't been serious about triage) [19:12:48] But they don't reclose on you most of the time [19:13:04] Extended wars only really happen with people from outside the community who don't understand how we work [19:13:16] Or people that just won't go away [19:13:34] Aye. [19:13:56] robla: I think you're thinking of triage in the "let's close a lot of old bugs" sense. [19:14:00] That _will_ cause problems. [19:14:01] let's use https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189 as an example [19:14:17] "let's close a lot of old bugs without addressing them properly" * [19:14:26] I vividly remember bug 189 [19:14:30] As usual, someone was being stupid [19:14:32] A few years passing doesn't reduce the validity of a bug. [19:14:42] robla: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_activity.cgi?id=189 [19:14:43] In this case, it was the Lilypond guy claiming all their problems were our responsibility [19:14:46] I'm not even saying we should close it [19:15:10] It was like [19:15:22] Lilypond folks: We want Lilypond support on Wikipedia [19:15:24] Tim: So write code [19:15:27] robla: Then why are you suggesting people would have an issue with triaging? [19:15:32] the general feature request (independent of the implementation) is valid [19:15:45] the implementation as proposed is problematic [19:16:05] "Here's the code" "It sucks because LP sucks, needs fixing" "I need to you come join my mailing list and fix LP for me" "No" "You guys are stubbornly refusing to enable LP support" *sigh* [19:16:06] what state should that be in? [19:17:21] I'm guessing we should probably at least remove the "needs-review" flag, right? [19:17:22] RoanKattouw: The first 100 comments can be safely ignored. [19:17:28] robla: No. [19:18:25] Tim gave a review, though, no? [19:19:32] Tim gave a lot of sass. I'm not sure which extension he reviewed. [19:20:25] hrm...that's not a lot of sass...that looks like some pretty specific set of recommendations [19:20:55] Read https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189#c40 [19:21:35] ok, but read https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189#c105 [19:21:52] I did. I don't know what he reviewed. [19:22:23] See comment 104. [19:22:37] It links to the attachment even [19:23:36] Well, that's clearly not going live anytime soon, then. [19:23:59] So yes, it can probably have the "need-review" keyword removed, though it really won't make a difference either way. [19:24:36] well, that's my point about triaging [19:25:55] I think part of the battle is coming up with a fair way of pruning and managing the list [19:26:04] I don't see how that meets any definition of "triage." [19:27:13] triage means deciding what to take care of now, what to take care of later, and what we're not going to ever take care of [19:27:25] Right. That's the function of Bugzilla and its statuses. [19:28:09] Looking at a long and complex bug with no chance of being implemented in any reasonable timeframe isn't helpful. [19:28:27] exactly [19:28:30] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20246 [19:28:51] If you want to discuss an example, try that one. Which has reviewed code that's in SVN and has a large community waiting on it. [19:30:02] As Roan and I discussed earlier, a lot of these bugs could be killed if the current (brain-dead) enablement procedures were changed. [19:30:12] Making some of these extensions opt-out instead of opt-in. [19:32:05] so, for 20246, I *think* I agree with you subjectively that it's something that should be on the short list. Is there any query to Bugzilla that generates a short list that that one is on? [19:32:53] Limit by bugs in Wikimedia/Site requests --> keyword:need-review. [19:33:35] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?keywords=need-review&query_format=advanced&keywords_type=allwords&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&component=Site%20requests&resolution=---&product=Wikimedia [19:33:39] Something like that. [19:36:13] *robla saves that search [19:36:37] Ashlee: could you find an appropriate home for that query on mediawiki.org? [19:37:05] Oh, you're talking about the Review queue. [19:37:09] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Review_queue [19:38:00] "No pages link to Review queue." [19:38:16] I guess it is in a category [19:38:32] along with 125 of its closest friends [19:38:41] This is why people prefer community members over outside people. :-) [19:39:50] It also says /Brion's/ review queue [19:40:20] Yes. [19:40:22] Last taken seriously in early 2009, it seems [19:40:34] aww [19:41:33] wow. bug 189 is entertaining reading. [19:42:12] I'd rather saw off my fingers. [19:43:30] robla: By the way... I find it a bit disturbing I'd never heard of Zak Greant until yesterday, though he says he's been working for WMF since May 2010. [19:43:43] Maybe I just don't pay enough attention. [19:43:52] anyway...thanks for the primer Ashlee. that at least gives me one place to start digging. [19:43:57] re: Zak [19:44:04] I don't think I heard about Zak in any public channels either [19:44:23] i ain't heard of a zak [19:45:05] he's zakg|away on #mediawiki [19:45:14] I'm a bitch, I realize, but he's supposed to be documenting MW development, yet seems to have difficulty with basic templating... http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20100921162542&limit=500&target=Zakgreant [19:45:39]