Hoi,
A conspiracy is wilful. I doubt that this is the case. If anything there is
neglect. Other languages are just not given the same priority. What you hope
for is that over time a language community will include developers that will
take care for its language issues. In the mean time the Betawiki developers
do what they can and I think they do a pretty good job.
As I said earlier, there are moves to start localising the tools of the Tool
Server. This will make a lot of difference. We learned a lot from just
starting the Commonist extension. As a localisation project it is a success,
the unresolved question is how to reliably get new "builds" that include the
latest localisation. This takes resources that we do not have.
What I hope for is that you, the developers, find this a reasonable
assessment of the situation. Either way, the aim is to provide the best
possible service and I hope you can agree that there is still much to do.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/2/2 Chad <innocentkil...@gmail.com>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > There has not been a satisfactory answer to the question why certain
> > services are not equally distributed over the services. When the
> > localisation and internationalisation of the tool server starts to kick
> in,
> > the priority of providing an equal support will be raised because
> increased
> > use will make these issues more visible and consequently it will not be
> as
> > acceptable as it currently seems to be.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
>
> Because enwiki requires a lot more resources by itself than most other
> wikis combined? That's why it gets its own cluster. Nobody is saying
> that the s3 replication is acceptable. Pretty much everyone who has said
> anything to the subject has agreed that yes, there is a problem. The fact
> that s3 died and s1 and s2 remained up is, as you and others have
> mentioned, is bad luck. If it had been s1 that died, we'd see similar
> complaints about a lack of support for the biggest wiki. When it is said
> that fixes are in the works and to please be patient, it serves no purpose
> to continue bringing it up. The horse is dead, stop beating it senseless.
>
> As to why the Lucene stuff hasn't been rolled out 100%, I cannot say
> (although Aryeh did bring up some good points I wasn't aware of).
> Perhaps there needs to be some more fine tuning before its more
> widely rolled out? As with most things: bugfixes and problem solving
> take precedence over new features (as well they should). Perhaps
> there've been issues with other things that have pulled time away from
> rolling out this new feature.
>
> I don't know what this thread expects. From the subject alone, I'm
> thinking the only acceptable answer is "Yes, there's a massive
> conspiracy against smaller wikis. Now you've figured us out."
> What answer would you have developers give?
>
> -Chad
>
> OT: Shouldn't this be on toolserver-l and/or wikitech-l? It
> *hardly* involves the foundation.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
