User talk:Waldyrious


 *  Note: To keep threads intact, I'll reply here if you write me here, so please check back or watch this page if you leave me a message.

Developers/Maintainers
Note that moving links out of components' description will make sync with bugzilla impossible. --Nemo 17:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the descriptions that currently don't have the link in their Bugzilla description? --Waldir (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Either it's considered obvious, or it should be fixed by adding one. --Nemo 18:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. So since this is a wiki and it's easy to sync, the descriptions should be first fixed/harmonized in bugzilla. Otherwise it would be detrimental to attempt to keep up with a list that is inconsistent and/or incomplete. --Waldir (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand your point. We're updating the description on the wiki and then we'll sync bugzilla with it. But bugzilla has only the description, not a table for each component, so if you remove crucial information it will be impossible to update bugzilla descriptions. --Nemo 08:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I dint't know that a bugzilla sync was planned. Well, I noticed that the bugzilla description can contain links, e.g. the "Apache config" component description in bugzilla has a link to the operations/apache-config repo (and the version on the wiki doesn't, btw). I imagine that such links are built using html markup, which is undesirable in the wiki, so a full sync would be awkward anyway; therefore, I don't see a problem with the links being appended to the desc in Bugzilla only (e.g. " ", or something to that effect), since that's not going to be the only difference anyway. --Waldir (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, appending URLs is horrible. Anyway, I knew that it's a lost battle. ;-) --Nemo 16:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we'd have to choose between a less-than-ideal description string in bugzilla or a less-than-ideal string on the table... I personally prefer the table to be more streamlined as it's way more informative (and actually allows people to contribute to it without jumping through hoops) --Waldir (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: MediaWiki search
I've replied you at. Cheers, Nemo 18:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)