User:Tmtoulouse/update

With the move to the new server I am willing to look into upgrading to the latest release of MediaWiki. This essentially breaks several of our custom editions such as the vandal brake and the intercom system. These will have to be redone with the new software.

The upshot is that pro we get the latest version, con it is more work for me and probably upwards of 2-4 hours of additional downtime when we make the shift.

What say thee mob?

8

Should we update to the latest version of MediaWiki when we transfer to the new server?

Vote Goat here

I think downtime shouldn't be an issue for anyone, really, but shouldn't you be the one who decides if you have to do more work? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 20:50, 12 December 2008 (EST)

I get a perverse pleasure out of hacking random open source code that almost off sets the pain in the ass nature of the whole thing. I am just sort of throwing it out there. I am hard pressed to find a reason to upgrade. There is no functionality that I am aware of that we need/want that the new version supply. But then again some people just like to have the "latest version" and also one never wants to fall too far behind the curve on upgrades or you are stuck. 72.38.25.242 21:00, 12 December 2008 (EST)

(EC)Trent, you're a hero. I trust that you'll fix the problems with the vandal and intercom issues. We can live with a downtime of a few hours I think. Perhaps you could elucidate the benefits of the latest version for those who don't know? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:04, 12 December 2008 (EST)

PS Does the new version ensure that TMT has to login and sign his name so that we know who the fuck is pontificating? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:06, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Never! Me and my cadre of IPs will rain confusion upon the site for much time to come. tmtoulouse 21:07, 12 December 2008 (EST)

I use this as an anti-fundamtentalist, pro-science source, is it within my rights to make a temporary mirror site? DillyDally 02:46, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Bottom left (on my skin anyhow) the site is marked as GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License 1.2), so there's nothing stopping you providing you also are "GFDLing" it. Frohlich 03:24, 13 December 2008 (EST)

The licence gives you the authority to copy it. You must also attribute it (I think) and include the same licence. What I've never been clear about is whether you have the ability to alter the content. And if does give you authority to alter it, how much you have to alter it before you would be able to claim personal copyright - if ever. Probably no relevant to whatever DillyDally wants it for, but it's just something I've never been clear on. Our of curiosity, any chance you could give us a link to the site you are copying to DillyDally?--Bob^{bing up} 04:20, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Honestly TMT, you do an outstanding amount of work here for neither money nor gratitude, so I say - forget it. Don't bother. We're an unruly bunch and we wouldn't need or appreciate it. Do the move, then return to your bar stool. DogP 10:03, 13 December 2008 (EST)

I'd say don't bother, unless there are obvious new features people are getting used to on wikipedia, say, that we want here. As I recall that's what we waited for before the last update - a reason to do it. Switching servers ought to be enough work for one night ;) ħuman 13:30, 15 December 2008 (EST)