User talk:RobLa-WMF/Archive 1

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Meetings notes

Hi! I've centralized and standardized meetings notes at Meetings. Please let me know if you have any concerns. --MZMcBride 22:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for copying on wiki WMF Projects/OWA/OWA Meeting 2010-11-18 etc.! Do you know if there's a way to make Etherpad produce a complete list of public pages created on the installation? Thank you, Nemo 23:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Other projects cannot share the same MediaWiki global variable names

What did you mean in [1] by "most other projects cannot share the same MediaWiki global variable names"? Given that our globals are namespaced by a $wg prefix, namespace collisions doesn't seem a problem for third parties. Platonides 21:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The abundance of globals in our software is in direct conflict with the coding standards of most projects. Maybe they technically could reuse components from our system, but they won't. -- RobLa-WMF 21:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"backcompat" tag and being a pedant

My initial thought is that your email to wikitech-l about the tag "backcompat" is counter-intuitive, and a labelling "backincompat" may be more explicit.

My concern is that "backcompat' can be ambiguous. it can mean either

  • that the change *is* backwards compatible so mark it as such; or
  • that the change "is incompatible" so mark it as such

To the geeks it may be obvious, to those of us speaking English it is less so. Anyway, just 20c worth of thoughts for consideration before it progresses. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)



Platform engineering

Hi, I'm Edward and I am writing a book on Wikipedia. I am trying to understand how the WMF budget is spent, but I not a computer expert and I am struggling to understand the difference between 'technical operations' and 'platform' and things like that. I'm assuming that technical operations is stuff like servers and datacentres and wires and routers and things, whereas 'platform' is more like MediaWiki software. Would that be about right? Sorry for being an idiot. (I do run a wiki myself as you can see from my user page, but that's about as far as it goes). Edward Buckner (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Edward, not a stupid question at all (I get asked this a lot), and you basically have it right. Wikimedia Platform Engineering mainly deals with the MediaWiki side of things (as well as some other things that require intensive software development, such as our custom layer between Lucene search engine and MediaWiki). Platform Engineering has four subteams, actually, only one of which (MediaWiki Core) fits that description. The other subgroups (Engineering Community, Quality Assurance, and Analytics Engineering) do work that is suggested by their names. The Wikimedia Platform Engineering page attempts to break this down. Hope this helps! -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Rob that's really helpful - many thanks. Edward Buckner (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Tech news: 2013-27

14:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Tech news: 2013-28

18:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-29

17:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-30

21:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-31

20:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-34;

20:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-40

20:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Configuration database

Hi, Requests for comment/Configuration database is being considered as one of the RFCs to be discussed at the RFC review on 2013-11-06 via IRC. You are receiving this notification because you edited or discussed this RFC. We hope to see you there.--Qgil (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: SUL finalisation

Hi. Regarding SUL finalisation, this discussion is relevant. Not much has changed since then: a suitable warning period, likely many months or a year, needs to take place before any forcible renaming takes place. A prerequisite for beginning the warning period is working global (wikifarm-wide) user renames and possibly a re-evaluation of how we treat accounts with few or no edits when someone wants that account name (i.e., usurping). cc: CSteipp --MZMcBride (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot RobLa for your edits. Yes, all that's needed, for users to figure all this out themselves, is a warning to all involved users with a clear (and comfortable) timeline and a Meta page where to ask renames. In turn this requires a global rename feature of any sort and an automatic cleanup of the trivial cases, e.g. about ~100k here. --Nemo 05:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
MZMcBride, I made a mistake that Deskana has just corrected. Our most current timeline is on SUL finalisation -- RobLa-WMF (talk)