| 8 Jul 2020 |
 darenwelsh | tgr: ? | 22:49:02 |
 tgr | it's a zip-based format, hard to securely handle those | 22:49:42 |
 Bryan Hilderbrand | darenwelsh: Out of curiosity, are you just storing the files or is the wiki somehow displaying the files on a map? | 22:53:43 |
| darenwelsh | at first, just storing them. But it seems like some of the map extensions allow for using KML to overlay paths and points | 22:58:03 |
| darenwelsh | now that we're planning surface EVA traverse paths, I'd like to use the wiki for that :) | 22:58:28 |
| 9 Jul 2020 |
|  thorsten joined the room. | 19:49:08 |
| tgr | https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T255366 might wreak some serious havoc on third-party wiki farms. Anyone interested in testing that? | 23:29:47 |
| 10 Jul 2020 |
 hexmode | tgr: thanks for raising that. I've noticed samesite messages at clients. | 13:24:38 |
|  madhukar | 19:39:48 |
| hexmode | The 1.34 set of patches in update.php makes running cleanupUsersWithNoId.php impossible: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T257642 Can we have cleanupUsersWithNoId.php drop the columns instead of update.php? | 13:31:00 |
| tgr | hexmode: the task is a bit vague (child tasks less so). Chrome is going to roll out SameSite enforcement on Monday. That will break some things, especially on non-HTTPS sites. I haven't fully understood yet what those things are. Probably less relevant to Wikimedia (which is HTTPS-only). | 13:49:27 |
| hexmode | tgr: the same site messages I've seen may be other js bits that are pulled. I'm not sure. But this gives me impetus to look at it more closely. | 13:51:45 |
| tgr | DROP COLUMN in update.php is scary. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T198492 has some related discussion. | 13:57:09 |
| darenwelsh | I'm thinking about using one of our wikis for an "RFC" on a technical topic. I wrote up a memo that I was going to send out via email, but instead I'm thinking of just putting that content into a wiki page and using the wiki to solicit responses. An | 21:46:42 |
|  mike | 21:49:54 |
| darenwelsh | Any advice on doing this? | 21:46:47 |
| darenwelsh | For example, should I put the initial content on a separate page and protect it? Should I use the talk page for responses? It looks like most of the Wikipedia and Wikimedia RFCs just do it all inline on the actual page and don't bother using the discussion page. | 21:47:41 |
 rundg | I'd do it inline as a living document. | 22:09:43 |
| rundg | you have the history and who did what | 22:09:59 |
| darenwelsh | I should clarify that I want the portion that I write up as the problem statement to go un-changed and to solicit responses below that | 22:10:57 |
| rundg | But your upfront statement might not be so perfect 😉 | 22:14:52 |
| rundg | but in that case, style it with CSS to 'protect' it | 22:15:12 |
| rundg | even put a lock symbol next to it | 22:15:28 |
| Bryan Hilderbrand | Talk page would be my first guess. What about putting on a different page, protecting that page, then transcluding the content into a page (in the main namespace) for discussion? | 22:24:40 |
| darenwelsh | I like the protect and transclude idea | 22:26:50 |
| 11 Jul 2020 |
 cicalese | You could use CommentStreams on the bottom of the page to have a threaded discussion about the content. | 02:49:08 |
 a.kuckartz | Has anyone here used https://hypothes.is/ to annotate MediWiki pages? That could be used to comment RFC documents. | 04:47:02 |
| a.kuckartz | * Has anyone here used https://hypothes.is/ to annotate MediaWiki pages? That could be used to comment RFC documents. | 04:49:38 |
| a.kuckartz | Just found https://github.com/yaronkoren/Hypothesis | 05:14:31 |
| 14 Jul 2020 |
| Bryan Hilderbrand | * Talk page would be my first guess. What about putting it on a different page, protecting that page, then transcluding the content into a page (in the main namespace) for discussion? | 00:53:52 |
