[09:02:32] Reedy: in theory... [09:02:57] the rename breakage two weeks ago was caused by a user who wasn't, for example [19:08:06] anomie: feel free to give me more context on that MFE issue here or where ever :) [19:10:56] ah, crossed emails :) [19:12:04] greg-g: I sent an email to wikitech-l on April 19, and on April 27 Adam pinged a bunch of people directly after we talked about it in a 1:1, and they had a patch to MobileFrontend in Gerrit that should have pointed out something was going on too. [19:12:32] anomie: yeah, agree with your stance :/ [19:12:53] so yeah, revert from wmf.1 or master and re-apply post wmf.1 cut [19:12:56] greg-g: If "revert then remerge" is the desired procedure... Ok, I guess, although I'd rather just revert in 1.30.0-wmf.1 after the branch and save having a mess of it in master. [19:12:59] same thing to me [19:13:09] you pick [19:13:40] I pick revert in wmf.1, seems more straightforward. [19:40:20] Does it sound sane to create a MW Vagrant role for "Wikimedia production" that just adds all the extensions (for which we have roles)? This way people don't have to manually enable five dozen different ones… [19:40:46] Oh. Apparently I suggested this two years ago: T91787. [19:40:47] T91787: Have a MediaWiki vagrant role "production" which mirrors WMF production - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T91787 [19:40:48] * James_F grins. [19:41:19] James_F: I think there may be a long open task about that [19:41:29] bd808: Making a quick patch now. [19:42:11] James_F: that's a "great minds think alike" thing with your past self :) [19:42:21] I do that quite often, I find. :-) [21:44:34] at least you're consistent. The best is when you think of a great idea and find out that you argued vehemently against it previously. [22:40:29] https://silentbreach.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/silent-breach-finds-vulnerability-with.html [22:51:17] Krenair: they really dug deep to find the api [22:51:45] In the response I included the URL they blanked out [23:39:14] is there a patch yet for that MF issue? [23:40:42] anomie has already identified the issue down to the line of code affected, right?