The page says last edited by user - username but when you click on that, there’s no user with that username and also says was active two years ago including if I want to register as that username! I am already signed in!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Reply to "Author"
Reply to "Move release statuses into a template"
About this board
The page does not say last edited by user - username. It only says "This page was last edited on 7 April 2019, at 00:31." at the bottom. Please provide clear steps to reproduce.
Move release statuses into a template
Can we move release statuses ("current version", "legacy version", etc.) into a translatable template?
These edits waste translation time and resources.
Sure, why not?
Tbh, we should just automate the whole table using Module:Version.
Did not think of that. Sure, go for it!
Bugzilla → Phabricator migration
The Release timeline still references Bugzilla (“Create X.XX version in bugzilla”). Could someone update it to the new workflow (I think it includes at least creating mw-X.XY-release tag in Phabricator?)?
Good pick. Just changed this according to your suggestion. Still need someone to accept the change though.
Why complicating things? Let them create whatever tag with the schema "mw-x.xx-release" whereas every x is filled with some number.
The rows’ first cells cannot be translated in the Release timeline section. This helps enforcing consistency for the R abbreviation (even if I would prefer being able to translate it), but forces every language to show weeks. I think the whole cell should be translatable.
Perhaps it should say REL-n weeks were weeks is actually translatable.
I just moved the weeks out of this cell to the introduction at the top. This saves us from having heaps of extra tags. Again a good finding. Thanks!
Re-added 1.18 and 1.20
I believe when people see the information about 1.19, 1.21 - 1.23 they will ask: "Hmm... what happened to 1.20? Was this version accidentally forgotten? Was it purposely removed and for what reason?" - So having it in the list avoids this. Also having 1.18 conveys the message that this version and any prior version is obsolete.
Someone else said that they thought the versions needed to be cleaned up. I'm not about to get into an edit war here, but it would be good if you could subscribe to wikitech-l and be able to join in when appropriate.
Oh my g... - this was on the mailing list? This is pretty unexpected. Well, it would have been nice to have some sort of reference in the summary to this to make it easier finding out about the rationale behind it. Probably I would not have touched the page. This is however definitively not worth an edit war. Rather have people wondering about this page's content.
If you see the thread link it from this talk or an edit summary please.
There are no older topics