Architecture meetings/RFC review 2014-04-16

From MediaWiki.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2100-2200 UTC April 16th, at #wikimedia-office connect.

Requests for Comment to review[edit]

  1. Requests for comment/Reducing image quality for mobile

Summary and logs[edit]

Meeting summary[edit]

  • LINK: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2014-04-16 (sumanah, 21:03:18)
  • Today is probably going to be a short meeting - just 1 RfC on the agenda (sumanah, 21:03:27)
  • Reducing image quality for mobile (sumanah, 21:03:31)
    • LINK: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Reducing_image_quality_for_mobile (sumanah, 21:03:54)
    • I asked Yuri what he wanted: 1) an ok from ops to increase thumbnail storage by 2-3% and number of files by 15%, 2) from core/tim/etc to proceed with the proposed patch <yurik> assuming my proposed path is satisfactory to everyone's involved (sumanah, 21:04:15)
    • LINK: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/119661/ Gerrit changeset, "Allow mobile to reduce image quality" (sumanah, 21:09:33)
    • comments were provided on the image quality gerrit patch (TimStarling, 21:42:33)
    • LINK: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Reducing_image_quality_for_mobile#File_insertion_syntax on wikitext addition (sumanah, 21:42:56)
    • image scaler backend relatively uncontroversial -- HTML/URL manipulation to access that API is more complex (TimStarling, 21:43:27)
    • gwicke predictably favours Node.JS service (TimStarling, 21:44:42)
    • <yurik> ok, all settled, will implement the first step (core patch), and start implementing JS magic (sumanah, 21:48:52)
    • required modifications: use string instead of integer "qlow-100px-image.jpg", make it JPG only (no png) (yurik, 21:50:31)
    • Tim skeptical about client-side JS rewrite: potential for CPU usage, flicker, image load aborts, browser incompatibilities, etc. (TimStarling, 21:54:34)
  • Next week - Associated namespaces (sumanah, 21:57:01)
    • LINK: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Associated_namespaces Next week David Cuenca wants to find out whether there are any objections to the "Namespace registry and association handlers" that Mark proposed, discuss possible problems with his proposed approach, and see if there would be any hands available to work on it. He mentioned that "I hope this RFC moves forward because it affects important upcoming and already depl (sumanah, 21:57:07)


Full log[edit]

See in HTML or see below.