[09:13:20] <guillom>	jorm, I don't think you're still around, but just checking...
[09:16:37] <GerardM->	Is it possible to mark messages as language specific ?
[09:16:45] <GerardM->	sorry wrong list
[17:36:44] <Reedy>	Oooooh
[17:36:45] <Reedy>	http://ie6countdown.com/
[17:36:52] <Reedy>	The Internet Explorer 6 Countdown
[17:36:52] <Reedy>	Moving the world off Internet Explorer 6
[17:37:55] <Reedy>	"This website is dedicated to watching Internet Explorer 6 usage drop to less than 1% worldwide, so more websites can choose to drop support for Internet Explorer 6, saving hours of work for web developers."
[17:38:13] <^demon>	It really is the China's fault
[17:38:37] <Reedy>	And South Korea
[17:38:43] <Reedy>	TrevorParscal, http://ie6countdown.com/
[17:38:46] <Reedy>	You just missed it :P
[17:39:01] <TrevorParscal>	ha ha
[17:39:16] <Reedy>	It's done by microsoft aswell
[17:39:22] <Reedy>	"saving hours of work for web developers."
[17:41:30] <Reedy>	Oooh
[17:41:32] <Reedy>	http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyId=21EABB90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EF&displaylang=en
[17:41:59] <Reedy>	^demon, we need this in Central Notice, now http://ie6countdown.com/join-us.html
[17:42:04] <Reedy>	guillom, ^ get to it!
[17:42:15] <guillom>	:D
[17:42:28] <guillom>	We couldn't help much with China.
[17:42:30] <Reedy>	"If your website has a logo, email it to us, so we can feature you alongside participating websites."
[17:42:37] <Reedy>	"Wikipedia hates IE6"
[17:43:32] <Reedy>	Can we actually do something like this as a campaign on Wikipedia?
[17:43:37] <^demon>	I don't think so :(
[17:43:55] <bawolff>	if you try browsing wikipedia on ie6, you'll find out pretty fast that wikipedia hates ie6
[17:43:58] <Reedy>	Either > IE6 || new other new browser
[17:44:07] <^demon>	I mean, the WMF can't.
[17:44:09] <guillom>	Reedy, we could do a blog post, but not much more, I reckon.
[17:44:52] <Reedy>	Hmmmm
[17:45:04] <bawolff>	oh wait, someone fixed the ie6 bugs (/me frowns)
[17:45:19] *Reedy 	blames TrevorParscal
[17:45:24] <^demon>	guillom: techblog :D
[17:45:35] <TrevorParscal>	Reedy: :( ?
[17:45:44] <guillom>	^demon, I think it could even go on the main blog
[17:45:45] <Reedy>	TrevorParscal, have you been fixing IE6 bugs again?
[17:45:51] <guillom>	after all, we're talking to the masses
[17:45:56] <bawolff>	hmm, logo is still very screwed though, that counts for something :)
[17:46:03] <Reedy>	I think it's at least worth a blog post or 2
[17:46:19] *guillom 	adds to to-do list.
[17:46:27] *Reedy 	hugs guillom
[17:47:02] <Reedy>	http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyId=21EABB90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EF&displaylang=en - Internet Explorer Application Compatibility VPC Image
[17:47:53] <guillom>	What's the planned release date for IE9?
[17:48:03] <guillom>	I can only find the RC.
[17:48:23] <Reedy>	Isn't it out?
[17:48:35] <Reedy>	Hmm
[17:48:37] <^demon>	The RC is out, not sure if they've announced a date for final
[17:48:50] <guillom>	http://windows.microsoft.com/ie9
[17:48:54] <Reedy>	guillom, ofc, suggesting FF, Chrome or similar is a better idea ;)
[17:49:15] <guillom>	Reedy, naturally. But some people won't change :)
[17:49:23] <Reedy>	Indeed
[17:49:24] <TrevorParscal>	Reedy: I did a bunch of IE6 fixing a month or so ago
[17:49:27] <Reedy>	heh
[17:49:36] <Reedy>	Well, movement from <= IE 6 would be great
[20:48:24] <Sven_Manguard>	!developers please
[20:48:24] --elephant--	I don't know anything about "developers".
[20:49:23] <bawolff>	Sven_Manguard: just ask your question
[20:50:23] <Sven_Manguard>	okay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Transferring_over_.22filemover.22_tool is about to be closed. There is a consensus for giving all autoconfirmed users the 'filemover' right (and only that right)
[20:50:34] <Sven_Manguard>	It needs implementation
[20:51:18] <Sven_Manguard>	the closer recommends werdna, but he's away ATM
[20:51:24] <bawolff>	(btw, just in either #mediawiki or #wikimedia-dev , not both. #mediawiki is probably the better channel)
[20:51:36] <Sven_Manguard>	okay
[20:51:42] <Sven_Manguard>	I'll continue there
[22:34:31] <robla>	hi folks, at several times, I've talked about having an overall smoke test for MediaWiki, but I don't recall if someone actually wrote it, or if that's still TBD
[22:38:31] <robla>	I don't see it here:  http://www.google.com/search?q=test%20plan%20site:mediawiki.org  ...but I'll keep poking around
[22:44:02] <Reedy>	Doesn't mark have one runnin?
[22:46:25] <robla>	Reedy: sorry, I mean "smoke test plan"
[22:47:02] <robla>	since we can't reliably automate everything, there are going to be parts that someone should run by hand
[23:07:10] <Platonides>	robla, what do you mean by a smoke test?
[23:24:27] <robla>	Platonides: a really minimal set of tests that lets you find the most embarrassing bugs
[23:25:23] <Platonides>	that depends on how you define "most embarrassing"
[23:26:28] <Platonides>	I found a bit embarrassing that there was no test that could have detected the stubthreshold of special:contributions
[23:26:44] <Platonides>	we could have tests with the full expected html
[23:27:01] <Platonides>	much easier than selenium
[23:28:38] <robla>	"most embarrassing" is highly subjective on purpose.  whatever plan we have needs to be small enough that it takes no more than (/me pulls number from air) 10 person-hours
[23:29:52] <robla>	automation obviously helps with that, but the danger with relying on automation is that it tends to bias the testing toward what can be automated rather than what is important
[23:31:41] <neilk_>	hey, what is my status here as a code reviewer? and how would i know?
[23:32:43] <jorm>	try to mark a revision as "okay?"
[23:32:58] <bawolff>	lol, thats always a good way to find out
[23:33:56] <robla>	I think jorm actually has it right in some respects  :)
[23:35:13] <neilk_>	I feel like I ought to be able to okay stuff in my own extensions
[23:35:50] <robla>	neilk_: are you approving stuff that someone else wrote but is in uploadwizard or one of the other things you're an expert in?
[23:36:09] <robla>	if so, I think you're right
[23:36:11] <neilk_>	well, let's start with UploadWizard
[23:36:26] <neilk_>	I'm not an expert in anything else except the uploading api and file stashing stuff.
[23:36:55] <neilk_>	on the other hand, I definitely can point out stuff that's wrong from time to time...
[23:37:13] <neilk_>	i just may not have the status to say "X is definitely ready for deploy"
[23:37:20] <Platonides>	well, if you are not sure something is right, you can also use the new sign-off feature
[23:37:58] <robla>	neilk_: I think pretty much anyone with commit access should mark "fixme"s that they're confident about
[23:38:22] <robla>	marking "ok" is a little dicier, for the exact reason you identify
[23:38:38] *robla 	looks up the code review guide
[23:41:01] <robla>	http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_review_guide
[23:43:15] <robla>	we don't yet have a process for people to get blessed as reviewers.  the signoff feature is partly meant as a means of giving people the ability to build up a track record
[23:44:16] <neilk_>	IIRC nothing stops you from marking "ok" on any change
[23:44:37] <neilk_>	other than the look of withering contempt you'll get in #mediawiki
[23:44:38] <robla>	that's correct...it's purely convention
[23:45:02] <Reedy>	and people will change to fixme later if they see a need to
[23:45:35] <robla>	it is possible for a committer to cause some trouble by marking things "ok" that really deserve more careful review
[23:45:46] <Reedy>	Chads put a bug on requesting we fix t hat
[23:45:59] <Reedy>	Marking any of your own revisions as "ok" is a bit grey
[23:46:07] <Reedy>	I'll try and poke that after some sleep, should be trivial to prevent
[23:46:13] <robla>	Reedy: that's not grey, that's black
[23:46:36] <neilk_>	Reedy: I thought you were the one who castigated me for doing that
[23:46:39] <Reedy>	i thought we had some weird use case where it was ok to mark your own as ok?
[23:46:44] <Platonides>	I did it once: "Any revision which is reverting to a previous version is automatically ok"
[23:46:54] <neilk_>	Reedy: I got FIXMEd and then I assumed I could "OK" it when fixed, but that's apparently not cool.
[23:47:09] <robla>	"fixme"->"new" when fixed
[23:47:14] <Reedy>	mhmm
[23:47:18] <Reedy>	reverted is obviously fine
[23:47:42] <robla>	"reverted" is the state to use when you revert
[23:47:57] <Platonides>	the reverting revision
[23:49:06] <robla>	I suppose if you're reverting your own checkin, then its ok
[23:49:24] <robla>	if you're reverting anyone else, then someone should probably review
[23:49:54] <Reedy>	well, it'll get reviewed in the revision that reverted it...
[23:50:18] <robla>	that's my point....I was responding to Platonides
[23:50:27] <neilk_>	you know what's amazing about wikimedia / wikipedia
[23:50:29] <Reedy>	oh :P
[23:50:34] <Reedy>	neilk_, we're all mad?
[23:50:40] <neilk_>	there will be like INFINITE discussions on the most minor rules
[23:50:52] <Reedy>	heh
[23:50:57] <Platonides>	xD
[23:50:59] <robla>	neilk_: that is HARDLY unique to us
[23:51:05] <neilk_>	but the major things like "who's allowed to do X" is all vague and self-nominating and loosey-goosey
[23:51:24] <neilk_>	robla: oh yeah, #1 observation is just geek culture.
[23:51:34] <neilk_>	#2 is the wiki way, I guess
[23:51:55] <robla>	yeah, but even 1+2 is pretty much the definition of a bikeshed argument
[23:52:32] <neilk_>	yeah
[23:52:53] <neilk_>	Infinite possibilities lie before us. But first, a five hour discussion on what's for lunch