[00:16:29] Ashlee: really dude? http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/73030#c10054 [00:17:38] Ashlee: gee, what color shall we paint the bike shed? [00:33:53] TrevorParscal: I think most people are in favor of tearing down the bike shed altogether and putting the bikes in the garage. :-) [03:34:19] holy crap, this is exactly what i predicted the other day in a conversation with trevor and nielk: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20019282-264.html [03:53:05] Next time, try the lottery. [04:56:32] Interesting article. [05:31:46] could someone please tell me why exactly vector skin has the "Navigation" bit of the sidebar always sit there for a split second and then disappear? that thing is driving me nuts [05:54:59] YairRand: Which navigation box? [05:55:55] hm? the bit at the top of the sidebar [05:56:18] right under the logo [05:56:35] Oh which wiki? [05:56:38] On * [05:56:50] AFAICT, all of them [05:57:06] The links directly below the logo don't collapse ever. [05:57:16] So I'm not sure what "disappear" means. [05:57:30] Main Page, Community portal, etc. should always be visible. [05:57:44] not the links, just the box containing the word "Navigation" [05:58:19] Huh. [05:58:19] sits there for a split second, then disappears [05:58:25] Yeah, I just saw it. [05:59:07] They're hiding it with JavaScript. [05:59:54] Which I imagine isn't executed until the page loads. [06:00:08] Kind of retarded to put something there only to hide it... [06:00:17] More usable, I'm sure. [06:00:36] Search for a bug and/or file one. :-) [06:06:13] I'd like to complain while we are on the topic of vector. [06:06:30] The new editing toolbar has LESS stuff on it. [06:06:38] One of which is the hidden comments button thing. [06:06:58] Ashlee, less stuff or fewer stuff? :-P [06:10:51] stuff is a mass noun [06:11:20] "hidden comments button thing"? [06:11:25] can you be more specific? [06:12:22] [06:12:34] I was joking about less vs. fewer. [06:12:46] Hence the emoticon. [06:13:02] Is hidden comments really too vague of a term? [06:13:24] I was thinking about a hidden (comments button), not a (hidden comments) button [06:13:53] Okay. [06:14:07] I'll agree it's a bit weird that nowiki is there and html comments aren't [06:15:41] I do love studying probability [06:15:48] because there aren't masses of theory to study [06:15:59] it's mostly a refinement and codification of common sense [06:19:07] hm, Bugzilla doesn't have the "Navigation" bit disappear at all... [06:22:25] This wikitech-l thread is making my head hurt. [06:27:52] *YairRand doesn't know what the different levels of "Severity" mean [06:30:30] meh [07:03:20] Ashlee: arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig [07:03:41] after about an hour, you're both covered in mud and exhausted, but you realise the pig's enjoying itself. [07:06:09] I just find it a bit depressing. [07:06:39] There are some people who get It. [07:06:42] And some people who don't. [07:07:25] If I'd said to Kaldari, "hey, you should put this in core instead of splltting it out" and then explained my reasoning, it would've been done within the day. [07:07:37] The same is true for some others. [07:08:43] <^demon> G'evening folks :) [07:08:49] But there's this insane level of obstinance. And it's largely coming from the same small group of people. [07:08:58] The people on the Usability team. [07:09:10] Hi ^demon. [07:09:17] hey ^demon [07:09:22] *^demon feels like he joined something interesting :) [07:09:28] ^demon: wikitech-l [07:09:42] <^demon> Yes, I've been participating. Is this a continuation of that? [07:09:45] I realize that most of you aren't in a position to say something. [07:09:46] Yes. [07:10:04] [03:04] Ashlee: arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig [07:10:07] [03:04] after about an hour, you're both covered in mud and exhausted, but you realise the pig's enjoying itself. [07:10:10] That's all you missed. [07:13:16] Ashlee: the fact that we're willing to publicly contradict coworkers is pretty unusually transparent to start with. But I don't think you'll catch many of us making public comments on our coworkers' competence or demeanour or whatever. [07:14:18] If you read between the lines of what Tim writes (or even just the lines sometimes, heh), he does. :-) [07:14:26] ping robla [07:14:29] But, yeah, that's what I was saying. [07:14:45] I, on the other hand, can say whatever I want. But most people tune me out. [07:14:48] *Ashlee shrugs. [07:15:47] <^demon> roberthl: It's quarter after midnight PDT, he's probably asleep :) [07:16:09] he can read backscroll when he gets back [07:16:42] yeah, robla: ping [07:16:58] *jeremyb thinks it's rare to find someone that can't read when they get back! [07:17:13] if you want it to come up in backscroll, then say what you have to say and he'll read it later [07:17:22] "ping robla" is not very helpful in backscroll [07:18:19] werdna, i wanted to direct him to this conversation as he has asked to be notified when discussions about stuff like this come up [07:18:27] ah [07:18:30] i do not need a reply from him [07:19:55] robla: ^^^^^^ [07:19:56] :P [07:20:23] en.wiki has an essay or something called IDIDNTHEARTHAT. [07:20:29] NAK then? :) [07:20:32] That's how I feel about most of the WMF staff these days. [07:20:59] en.wiki has an essay for every occasion [07:21:06] It's not that they aren't around or alive, it just falls on deaf ears. [07:21:06] I swear there's a WP:ITSNOTYOUITSME [07:21:34] you mean ICANTHEARTHAT? [07:21:38] err [07:21:45] ICANTHEARYOU [07:21:52] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT [07:22:02] Read wikitech-l and then tell me that isn't a classic case. [07:22:13] ICANTHEARYOU goes to the same place, heh. [07:22:15] oh, it's a specific section [07:22:29] Yes. [07:22:43] but werdna is 404 [07:22:59] I'm 310. [07:24:19] and woot, i just checked with curl and it really is a 404! [07:24:35] not that i'd expect anything else from MW [07:24:37] :P [07:25:46] *werdna ? [07:25:51] I'm 404? [07:26:08] Your link. [07:26:27] jeremyb: That's fairly controversial behavior, actually. [07:26:41] Ashlee: erm? [07:26:45] ah [07:26:48] Returning a 404 for non-existent pages. [07:26:51] soft 404s suck [07:27:03] jeremyb: some browsers override 404 pages [07:27:04] controversial among whom? [07:27:06] with a generic message [07:27:15] Some web servers as well. [07:27:19] ohhhrmmm [07:27:30] why do we care about servers? [07:28:23] Controversial among people who think that returning content ought not be called a 404. [07:28:31] We care about servers because they host and run MediaWiki. [07:31:50] has it *ever* been a problem with any of the 5 webservers that MW is deployed with? [07:33:20] What? [07:33:40] Yes, it's an actual issue, not a theoretical one. [07:33:56] returning non boilerplate content with a 404 status [07:34:07] i mean on the server side not the user agent [07:34:37] IIS has a bad default setting that overrides the setting, as I recall. [07:34:58] and people actually use that with MW? [07:35:15] Yes. [07:35:21] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2585 [07:35:22] how weird [07:36:01] do they ever come to IRC asking for help? i can't imagine they'd get much [07:36:32] i.e. they'd probably not find anyone that's ever tried it [07:36:50] The #mediawiki logs are searchable. [07:37:02] yes, and i even have some of them [07:37:21] Looks like Microsoft has a 25% market share? [07:37:46] in netcraft or mediawiki or ? [07:37:56] Overall. [07:38:20] A lot of people run it. That's my point. [07:39:18] *jeremyb didn't know any current numbers [07:40:00] Some survey this kind of thing. [07:40:11] yes, netcraft [08:20:46] <^demon> TrevorParscal: I sent you an e-mail :) [08:26:28] ^demon: thank you [08:27:15] should I really put these vector prefs in the Preferences class? [08:27:44] <^demon> What prefs are they again? [08:28:24] they turn on/off the collapsible navigation and edit warning modules [08:28:39] it's just 2, but it feels so dirty to spread them out over the code base like that [08:29:51] <^demon> Well, prefs are generally evil (AryehGregor will eat you :p). When at all possible it's better to replace them with a sane default. [08:30:07] <^demon> That being said, removing prefs is always difficult. Hard to tell how many people you might piss off :p [08:30:36] yeah, the collapsible nav pref is usually not enabled [08:30:43] but the edit warning one is [08:31:01] <^demon> I think the edit warning one is worth keeping. [08:31:10] it's also been suggested that the edit warning thing should be available for all skins [08:31:30] <^demon> I think it's generally useful, yeah. [08:31:42] <^demon> And less discrepancies between skins is always good. [08:31:56] <^demon> And keep that pref, yes. I find the warning to be terribly annoying :p [08:32:20] ha ha [08:32:59] the only reason it exists is because we were in a meeting and Erik was like "But, that's too easy to click the other tabs now, people might do it on accident" [08:33:07] we never saw evidence of that in studies [08:33:21] the edit warning never popped up because of an accedent [08:33:50] good example of us being told what to do instead of being given the opportunity to prove what needed to be done [08:33:58] I think things are much better these days [08:35:42] I appreciate you taking the time to respond btw [08:36:48] <^demon> It was my pleasure, I hope I gave you something of what you were looking for. [08:43:34] <^demon> Ugh, where's Roan when I need him. [08:43:42] <^demon> werdna: You still around? [08:44:12] <^demon> Nope :( [08:46:02] <^demon> TrevorParscal: Is r61700 resolved? Per http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/61700#c9652 I'm pretty sure it is :) [08:46:30] I patched our own version [08:46:44] and when I passed it upstream, they marked my bug as a dup [08:47:15] and applied some other approach to solving the same issue [08:47:44] so, it should be fixed in the SVN, as well as in future releases of jQuery (but probably not the current production release on the home page of jquery.com) [08:48:42] <^demon> Hm, I'd call that resolved if it's fixed in trunk and on wmf sites. [08:48:56] see r74326 [08:51:40] ^demon: slightly [08:52:19] wazzap, my friend [08:52:34] <^demon> werdna: If I merge r74693 to wmf (bugfix for periods displaying codereview titles) could you scap it? [08:52:48] <^demon> Or rather, review it so I can merge it :) [08:53:11] ok, but after dinner [08:58:04] ooh, ad-hoc scapping! [08:58:37] <^demon> Roan wanted me to fix this :p [08:59:39] seems harmless enough of a patch [09:06:26] well, it's 2:07am... I should have been in bed ages ago [09:06:30] cyall [09:13:18] ok ^demon, wink me [09:13:55] huh, "3 out of 5 code reviewers"? I was afraid this is going to happen and everybody else who also reviews code is giving suddenly less weight [09:14:20] just the opposite wath danese is trying to do [09:15:42] as a side note, it's painful to watch two channels which contains similar discussions [09:16:11] the distinction between two isn't clear enough [09:54:49] ^demon: are you here? [09:58:28] it's probably a bit early for him :P [09:58:49] well, he he asked me to review something an hour ago [09:58:56] and then 25 mins later I got back [09:59:00] so... [09:59:21] oh [09:59:23] meh [10:02:27] anyways, how goes? [10:06:10] Not sleeping well, and woke up with a horrendous headache again :( [10:06:37] You? [10:08:06] neck-deep in algebra [10:08:21] :( [11:23:40] *robla saves the backlog for later reading [11:31:03] hello robla [11:31:05] how goes? [11:31:16] not too bad....yourself? [11:32:43] I'm actually getting ready to shut down. heading to the airport soonish [11:33:10] Where are you off now? [11:33:20] not too bad, doing math \o/ [11:33:23] it's wednesday [11:33:26] sf no doubt [11:33:29] yup [11:33:37] heh [11:33:44] state-space equations ftw \o/ [11:37:58] robla, re the email, that's fine [11:38:34] xlnt, thanks! [11:38:54] alrighty....later all! [11:38:57] xlnt? [11:39:00] *werdna slaps robla [11:39:02] catch you later [13:20:08] Ashlee: Re roadmap: there was this internal spreadsheet but it was mostly outdated. Trevor and I worked up a new list yesterday, which we sent to Alolita so she can mold it into a decent roadmap rather than a bulleted list in no particular order with no indication of priority etc. [13:35:40] RoanKattouw: Cool. Thanks for the update. :-) [14:00:43] evening [14:02:21] RoanKattouw: isn't that the whole point of the discussion happening of the late, that volunteers feel outsiders whenever they are excluded [14:03:02] Nikerabbit: What exactly are you responding to when you say that? [14:03:49] oh right, it was werdna :) [14:04:42] What did werdna say that makes you say that, then? [14:05:09] I think it's "pick on Trevor day" :-). Can we settle down and assume [14:05:09] that he's saying that lots of people agree with it, and is using this [14:05:09] as an example of the weight carried by some the people who are in [14:05:09] agreement? Nobody has made any objection, so there is no indication [14:05:10] whatsoever that "code reviewers" are overruling anybody else. [14:05:22] what'd i do? [14:06:11] I think people are blowing up in somebody's face because he used unanimity including a few code reviewers as a yardstick for consensus [14:06:16] I think that's a bit unnecessary [14:06:47] Trevor's wording was unfortunate, yes, but blown out of proportion [14:06:52] I agree on that it may not be fair or nice for trevor, but on the other hand sweeping under carpet because of that isn't good either [14:07:26] nobody's sweeping anything under the carpet for the sake of somebody else's feelings [14:07:37] if I say what I think about, is that end of the world? I really tried to word in it a way which doesn't unnecessarily place the blame on trevor [14:07:49] I'm just saying that it's not worth the friction to complain about it. [14:08:26] I think everyone agrees that we make decisions collaboratively as a community, not by majority vote among code reviewers [14:08:27] I think it is, since I think it is exactly about the thing that makes volunteers feel outsiders [14:08:52] I mean hell, I'm not a "code reviewer" [14:09:07] regardless of the intention which probably isn't malicious [14:09:15] Code reviewers' voices are usually better heard, but that's not because they're code reviewers, it's because they're experts in their field (which is why they became code reviewers) [14:10:15] It's just that, these days, everything that could, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed as keeping volunteers on the outside *is* being construed as such [14:10:18] the wording unnecessary highlight some people who were only assigned to do the job (which they wouldn't otherwise do?) while excluding those others who do it as well [14:10:32] Again, I agree the wording is unfortunate [14:11:12] But people (and I'm not so much talking to you than I am to e.g. Robert and MZ) should be able to tell the difference between unfortunate wording and something someone actually means. It was easy to tell in this case, IMO [14:11:24] and that's the only thing I wanted to say, not to blame anybody, and then I was shushed [14:12:15] Nobody's shushing you. And code reviewers are relevant to that particular discussion [14:12:28] and it's not that someone /might/, it affected me so much that I bothered to reply [14:12:34] Nikerabbit: Nobody even /replied/ to your post [14:12:52] since code reviewers are the ones whose time and effort were being considered in whether or not to merge the extensions in [14:13:14] RoanKattouw: oh right I didn't notice that, I took the reply of implicitly include mine too [14:14:21] He replied to Robert L's message, which had quite a different tone from yours [14:15:10] the wording excluded many volunteers from being code reviewers, which is opposite of what Danese is working on. I just highlighted that and I hope someone thinks up a little how to avoid doing the same mistake again [14:16:26] Like I say, I think it's supposed to be a deference to the fact that those five are ultimately the ones who would be REQUIRED (not just allowed, but required) to review the code, should it be merged. [14:16:40] In no way does the phrase 'code reviewer' implies non-volunteer [14:17:11] Although you're right that the 5 reviewers Trevor named are all paid [14:17:13] (and therefore, they're the ones who are most affected by the decision) [14:17:29] And yes, werdna is right, Trevor was being considerate [14:17:36] RoanKattouw: it directly corresponds to the six code reviewers announced while back, that's pretty explicit [14:18:15] wow, foundation-l sucks [14:18:29] werdna: No shit [14:18:34] I think we've hit the end of this discussion [14:18:38] look at the moldovan wikipedia discussion [14:18:44] it's insanely hideous [14:19:48] ok, is time for Andrew to (at least think about) sleep [17:37:53] RoanKattouw: hi [17:38:05] Morning [17:55:19] priyanka just pulled a joker. [17:55:29] we don't have an understanding for what that means. [17:55:33] hah [17:55:39] That's a mistake [17:55:51] Always define jokers or leave them out [17:56:30] we skipped it. this time. [18:00:58] RoanKattouw, adam_miller , Reedy , for now I'm alone in R7, but we'll probably use x2002 [18:01:16] Hm? [18:01:20] Also, what's that music? I thought we got rid or that. [18:01:39] Reedy, are you still part of the features team? I don't remember. [18:01:45] I don't really know either [18:01:49] :) [18:02:03] I'm more drifting towards General under robla. But no one really seems to know for sure! [18:02:19] Oh crap, meeting [18:02:22] You should ask them (robla & alolita) and get a straight answer. [18:02:35] Reedy: you're in General [18:02:36] I think it's been asked, and even Danese doesn't know :P [18:04:37] http://eiximenis.wikimedia.org/FeaturesTeam20101013