[00:00:12] 1.14.0 [00:01:55] rofldan8: I don't think you need tidy just to use infoboxes then (TimStarling could tell you more details on that) [00:02:59] it should work without it, assuming the infoboxes aren't totally broken [00:03:03] k [00:03:06] k [00:03:33] kk [00:04:06] hello? [00:04:30] hello? [00:05:36] Tim: when was the oldPP option removed? [00:07:47] wait has anyone checked to see if file moving/renaming ect breakes the video/audio players? [00:11:02] *Splarka pokles brion [00:12:58] o.0 bugzilla is sending me bug report comments are differnt intervals, i have like #15, #33, #31..... for that "Enable image renaming on...." bug [00:14:20] I see them ordered [00:17:45] http://localhostr.com/files/c0ed8c/Bug%20Emails.png [00:26:54] in the bottom gnome panel how do you get same applications grouped together like in KDE ? [00:27:25] like if there is three instances of Firefox ...they would be shown as only one icon..and hovering over it shows vertical view of the three firefox instances? [00:28:00] oops wrong channel :) [00:28:09] any gnome users might know the answer anyways? :) [00:28:33] It seems to do it automatically for me if you have too many. [00:28:39] But #gnome is probably a better place to ask. [00:28:56] yeah...i meant to ask in that channel :) [00:29:03] sorry about the off topic question [00:42:06] Q how to enable parserfunctions [00:43:45] !parserfunctions | chzz [00:43:45] --mwbot-- chzz: "Parser functions" are a way to extend the wiki syntax. ParserFunctions is an extension that provides the basic set of parser functions (you have to install it separately!). For help using parser functions, please see . For details about the extension, see . [00:44:51] ty [00:49:25] Q how to update from 1.17 to latest ver? [00:49:42] chzz, a time machine might be useful. [00:49:48] :-) [00:49:52] (current trunk is 1.15alpha) [00:50:16] 1.14 [00:50:26] but...hang on a sec. [00:50:42] 1.14.0 is the latest stable version. [00:51:07] In parserfunctions, it says "The ParserFunctions extension requires [00:51:07] * MediaWiki 1.7.0 or above [00:51:07] ??? [00:51:11] izzit wrong? [00:51:15] chzz: 1.7 [00:51:18] 1.14 > 1.7 [00:51:26] 14 > 7 [00:51:32] 1.14 != 1.1.4 [00:51:38] (in case it's not clear yet ;) ) [00:51:44] 1.7 == 1.07 [00:51:46] nuberwang [00:52:05] if 1.14 isn't enough for you: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Download_from_SVN [00:52:09] but 1.14 is fine for parserfunctions [00:52:14] kthx [00:52:18] see, I told you we should have gone from 1.9 to 2.0 [00:52:29] nah, base36 [00:52:36] that's the second time I've seen that complaint on this channel [00:52:37] 1.d.0 [00:52:49] TimStarling, it's like the fifth time I've seen it. [00:53:06] We should have just called the old versions 1.07 and so on, maybe. [00:53:10] Too late for that, though. [00:53:16] wait until 1.100.0 [00:53:18] ok, well let's go to 2.0 next release then [00:53:24] that'll fix it [00:53:35] Write an awesome new feature to justify it. [00:53:42] yeah right [00:53:51] tim only writes crappy new features nowadays [00:53:52] but 1.101.4 would be such much cooler >.> [00:53:54] no money left for the awesome ones [00:54:09] p858snake, if we keep going like that, we could have a MW version that's a valid IP address! [00:54:10] I can only half write features before multiple people give me projects which they think are more important [00:54:11] would storing compressed diffs for revisions justify it? [00:54:29] hehe [00:54:30] Splarka, no, because almost everyone is already using ordinary uncompressed revisions anyway. [00:54:33] (Right?) [00:54:45] Splarka: we'd need something user-visible like ditching monobook ;) [00:54:56] Simetrical: maybe if we could get it to the ip of the wikimedia servers..... >.> [00:55:07] I'll just change the monobook colour scheme [00:55:07] Give the releases funky names, like ubuntu [00:55:20] chzz: i think the word you're looking for is 'crappy' [00:55:20] put in some blue backgrounds, like modern [00:55:27] then it can be 2.0 [00:55:32] *Simetrical votes for Lecherous Llama [00:55:42] well, a name makes it easier to talk about than '1.1.23123.1' etc. Maybe. [00:55:43] or change the name [00:55:47] PediaWiki [00:55:52] PedoWiki [00:55:55] Simetrical: Ditzy Developer [00:56:00] Slutty Sysadmin [00:56:11] Mediocre Marmoset [00:56:19] Useless User [00:56:20] Petulant Panda [00:56:20] Microsoft Wikidows [00:56:20] Any name, doesn't matter. Then, like, "I'm using banana, and I can't use templates' [00:56:21] (hey, i like that one) [00:56:41] Sadly, I think Mark Shuttleworth declares the new names by fiat, so our brilliant input is unlikely to be heeded. [00:57:13] I figure that if we use the current version numbering for long enough, people will get used to it. [00:57:23] It worked for Linux, GNOME, Apache, . . . [00:57:45] if only linux, gnome or apache worked [00:58:18] I'm pretty sure everyone here has used at least two of the three in the last hour, one way or another, so I'd call that working. [00:59:23] I know, we should be like Solaris and just use huge numbers for the first part. Next release should be MediaWiki 15, that will solve all problems. [00:59:51] the solaris marketing releases are pretty stupid [00:59:53] these users who are complaining obviously haven't encountered linux or gnome version numbering [01:00:06] they just thought that since it's been 2.x for the last 15 years, people would assume it wasn't progressing [01:00:14] a new user is never going to be "used to" anything, they can only from their experiences [01:00:20] We could be like Microsoft, and randomly alternate between non-sequential numbers, random stupid words, and meaningless two-letter acronyms. [01:00:42] and most people have more experience with decimal arithmetic than software version numbering [01:00:54] (fun fact: SunOS 4.1.4 was Solaris 1.1.2... that's not confusing at all!) [01:01:08] Or we could be like video card vendors, and call the next release MediaWiki 15042 GLT MX5. And the release after that can be 214 QXZ+. [01:01:18] Then we can progress to 955 NTL Ultra. [01:01:30] But how often does a decimal number have two (or more) decimal points? [01:01:55] TimStarling, yes, but eventually, if nobody ever talks about the pre-1.10 versions anymore, people will be comparing two-digit minor versions and the order will be clear. [01:02:01] anomie, ours don't. [01:02:07] 1.14.0? [01:02:07] 1.14 has one decimal point. [01:02:52] I think the best versioning scheme is Ubuntu's numbered scheme. Y.MM. [01:03:12] Simetrical: that's gonna look weird in 91 years [01:03:14] If more people used that, we could actually compare version numbers between different software to some extent. [01:03:23] do they release 100.04 or 2100.04? [01:03:33] can't well do 00.04 :) [01:03:33] 100.04 would make the most sense. [01:03:53] . . . Most software changes its version numbering scheme more often than once every 91 years, though. [01:04:02] Especially since, you know, software hasn't existed that long. [01:04:06] and then in y3k, is it 999.10 -> 1000.04 or 3000.04? [01:04:10] Unless you count Ada Lovelace or something. [01:04:16] Dude, just do it sequentially. [01:04:26] Build 28973897489378765563552355376785869969836255364745 [01:04:35] yeah that's memorable [01:05:44] Do you also compile your C with 128-bit time_t just in case you want to run your program in the year 9223372036854775808? [01:05:47] but it worked in 28973897489378765552552355376785869969836255364745 [01:05:50] >.> [01:06:11] safety first! [01:06:21] Simetrical: the problem with ubuntu's method is it doesn't let you release new versions of the non-current version [01:06:33] flyingparchment, you mean like 8.04.1? [01:06:38] unless you do 2009.05.3, which is just... even more confusing [01:06:45] That's what they do. [01:06:57] so 8.04.1 was released on 1st of april? [01:07:14] brion, [090319 09:44:30] Quote from Ian Hickson resisting expansion of