[16:20:10] For the record, I am now reviewing Reedy's revisiosn [17:32:44] 0 new for Reedy, now reviewing John's revs [17:45:29] petan, are you the boss of cloaks? [17:46:10] andrewbogott: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_channel_cloaks says no [17:46:49] hm, I wonder why Ryan said I should bug petan... [17:48:21] I think he helped us before [17:48:22] with sara [17:49:21] The folks on that page must live in rooms that I'm not in. [18:09:01] andrewbogott: hi [18:09:11] petan: hi! [18:09:19] I am not a boss of cloak but I know some people who can fix that :) [18:09:26] I am in some manner of cloak-related purgatory, hoping to speed up the process. [18:09:33] I've applied several times, although maybe not correctly. [18:09:39] ok [18:09:42] thank you! [18:10:20] I don't meet the stated requirements (not a long-term wikipedia contributor) but I'm a foundation contractor so a cloak would be useful. [18:11:06] andrewbogott: I got a cloak on my 2nd attempt [18:11:07] <^demon> If you have commit access you qualify for a mediawiki cloak [18:11:09] also a contractor [18:11:34] andrewbogott: check you memos [18:11:42] Barras sent you a memo with details [18:12:27] I don't think I know what that means/where that is [18:12:44] ./msg memoserv help read [18:12:48] without . [18:13:23] memoserv says I have 0 memos. [18:13:29] 0 new [18:13:34] but there should be some you read [18:13:42] he sent you that time ago [18:14:43] Um... sorry to be dim, but when I say 'LIST' it says 'You have 0 memos (0 new)' is there a different way to list old things? [18:16:34] he's checking it now [18:59:54] Hey, RoanKattouw. Let me know if that patch looks okay. :) [18:59:54] raindrift: Good morning [18:59:59] lol. jinxed it [19:00:03] heh [19:00:06] Yeah it looks fine [19:00:09] awesome. [19:00:23] It looks like Niklas may still be busy deploying stuff though [19:00:40] That's fine. I'm not in a hurry... [19:00:51] There's also a CSS hack that Erik put in place. I'm not entirely sure of the details there. Let me see if he's around and I can ask him. [19:01:18] Nope, seems to be in a meeting. I'll investigate. [19:08:01] raindrift: Alright, it's deployed, should be live in 5 mins [19:08:36] Awesome. Thanks! [19:08:51] I'll ask Erik to revert his css change when he gets back. [19:13:09] howief: Please tell Fabrice to call me into the AFTv5 meeting [19:32:45] andrewbogott: cloaked [19:33:17] Hooray! [19:33:20] Thanks again [20:15:53] rsterbin: Alright, so you guys wanted that list of revisions you sent me to be deployed today, right? How about right nwo? [20:17:29] RoanKattouw: I'm going to run out and grab some lunch, since UW seems to be doing fine. I don't expect to be long, but if you need me for any reason, I'm available via email, or SMS at [CENSORED] [20:17:36] (i should get an irc client for my phone...) [20:17:53] raindrift: Did you mean to post your phone number in a publicly logged channel? [20:18:43] cue 20 different people prank calling raindrift... :P [20:18:55] heh [20:19:13] I have his number in my phone now, but I don't think he wants THE WHOLE WORLD to have his number in their phone (OH NOOOES) [20:23:31] ok, ^demon, AaronSchulz, there are now 3 items in the commit access queue -- the last 2 are the more urgent ones, the first one is left over from April and we already said "come back after more practice" [20:24:14] raindrift: removed from logs [20:24:58] oh [20:25:03] it's -dev [20:25:08] so I removed it only from one log :D [20:25:14] I'll remove it from the other log [20:25:15] ther other one is controled by Roan [20:25:21] ok [20:26:53] done [20:31:10] Reedy: 17 PHP Fatal error: Call to a member function getAction() on a non-object in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.18/extensions/FlaggedRevs/presentation/FlaggedPageView.php on line 1322 [20:31:17] Reedy: Not sure why I'm blaming you for that, but ... [20:31:19] AaronSchulz: --^^ [20:31:22] haha [20:32:10] meh [20:32:11] When in doubt blame reedy [20:34:09] AaronSchulz, ^demon -- make that 2 requests awaiting review for commit access. [20:34:53] if you can each take 1 and do a bit of code review before tomorrow night's meeting, that'll make things go pretty fast or obviate the need for the meeting entirely! [20:35:35] ok [21:22:41] RoanKattouw, rsterbin: I'll be lurking in the channel, ping me if you have any question regarding the AFT option3 patch or edit tab clicktracking [21:22:51] ok [21:23:16] i tested it out, and it looks fine [21:23:23] DarTar: The changes Reha pinged me about are live now. I don't really know what they do though (Reha?) [21:23:30] i guess we'll see what the data says later on [21:23:37] ah awesome [21:23:47] I didn't retain that information very well, seemed to be mostly bug fixes thogh [21:24:02] we were basically not collecting any data for users posting a comment with a null rating [21:24:03] RoanKattouw: option3 was rejecting comments without ratings [21:26:38] rsterbin, RoanKattouw: confirmed I can now submit comment without selecting a rating [21:28:35] and we are now capturing the data as expected [21:29:08] i.e. a unique record in aft_article_feedback and a single row in aft_article_answer [21:29:21] (as there's only text, no rating associated with this feedback) [21:29:42] thanks, sending an email to the team to announce the fix [21:34:45] awesome, thanks [23:26:31] DarTar: I'm working on the clicktracking for the edit tab and section edit links -- what would you like to call those? [23:26:51] sweet [23:27:07] let me see if I can get the naming scheme from the section edit link data [23:27:31] unless you have it handy, in which case we can reuse the same event names [23:27:34] one sec [23:27:48] do you want to track it exactly as before, or with an aftv5 prefix? [23:28:08] did Roan mention if it's ok to track at 100%? [23:28:29] I think we sampled impressions of the link as they are not dependent on user interaction [23:28:36] but that was before the UDP logger [23:28:44] no, but his concern before was with tracking that didn't involve user interaction -- this does [23:29:16] impressions of edit tab links don't involve interaction, do they? [23:29:20] i'm looking at the section edit click tracking now, and it involves bucketing [23:29:28] it's not tracking impressions, it's tracking clicks [23:29:40] hang on, 1 sec [23:29:58] we already know impressions -- 100% on the tab ;) [23:31:59] yeah, as long as (1) pageview data is reliable, which is not always the case and (2) we can match pageviews with impressions of the AFT trigger (which may be complicated because of unsupported platforms) [23:32:27] you're right, for SEL we were only tracking clicks and saves [23:32:38] not even save attempts [23:32:57] hmm I thought I had seen save attempt data, one sec [23:33:29] ok, switching to skype so I can send you some stuff [23:33:36] ok, let me sign on... [23:33:41] k