A few things: 1. We've been attacked Wed by one or two idiots from Slashdot. They kept replacing the content of the front page with some silly Balmer images :) Not a big deal, since MoinMoin makes it a snap to revert to an older version. However, this episode forced me to at least require that you sign up before you can edit a page. This is probably a good idea anyway, I hope people agree. 2. I've placed the modifications to the code on the Wine CVS repository at SourceForge in the 'wiki' module. Please feel free to check it out and send in patches (sending them to wine-patches(a)winehq.org with a subject prefix of 'Wiki:' is fine, or directly to me if you prefer). 3. Mike is right, the namespacing stuff if not a good idea. I'll try to get rid of it, I'm going to try to rename the page, but first I have to enable the feature. If not, I'll just simply recreate them. As always, you comments, suggestions and complaints are most welcome. -- Dimi.
Can you post the Balmer image someplace else on the wiki for us to see? Can you email it me? :-) Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
A few things:
1. We've been attacked Wed by one or two idiots from Slashdot. They kept replacing the content of the front page with some silly Balmer images :) Not a big deal, since MoinMoin makes it a snap to revert to an older version. However, this episode forced me to at least require that you sign up before you can edit a page. This is probably a good idea anyway, I hope people agree.
2. I've placed the modifications to the code on the Wine CVS repository at SourceForge in the 'wiki' module. Please feel free to check it out and send in patches (sending them to wine-patches(a)winehq.org with a subject prefix of 'Wiki:' is fine, or directly to me if you prefer).
3. Mike is right, the namespacing stuff if not a good idea. I'll try to get rid of it, I'm going to try to rename the page, but first I have to enable the feature. If not, I'll just simply recreate them.
As always, you comments, suggestions and complaints are most welcome.
On Fri, 06 May 2005 00:45:05 -0400, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
However, this episode forced me to at least require that you sign up before you can edit a page. This is probably a good idea anyway, I hope people agree.
The slashdotting has passed, I doubt it'll be a problem again. I should have known better than to directly link to it from the story. D'oh! thanks -mike
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:12:01PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
The slashdotting has passed, I doubt it'll be a problem again. I should have known better than to directly link to it from the story. D'oh!
Don't worry, it wasn't a big deal, I think it was OK to post to ./ And hey, it was a good server test, we survived just fine! :) I wanted to require that you login to edit anyway, it was so easy to forget that I even forgot a few times. Do people want to go back to the old way, and allow even not logged in people edit? -- Dimi.
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:12:01PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
The slashdotting has passed, I doubt it'll be a problem again. I should have known better than to directly link to it from the story. D'oh!
Don't worry, it wasn't a big deal, I think it was OK to post to ./ And hey, it was a good server test, we survived just fine! :)
I wanted to require that you login to edit anyway, it was so easy to forget that I even forgot a few times. Do people want to go back to the old way, and allow even not logged in people edit? I would vote against it. To login is not hard and that way you know whom to blame^Hthank for the change ;)
bye michael -- Michael Stefaniuc Tel.: +49-711-96437-199 Sr. Network Engineer Fax.: +49-711-96437-111 Red Hat GmbH Email: mstefani(a)redhat.com Hauptstaetterstr. 58 http://www.redhat.de/ D-70178 Stuttgart
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:12:01PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
I wanted to require that you login to edit anyway, it was so easy to forget that I even forgot a few times. Do people want to go back to the old way, and allow even not logged in people edit?
New to the list, and with not much weight on my words, but still... I gather a required log in would be the way to go. Why? Well, imagine your basic net troll stumbling on wine wiki. "Hey! I can edit these! Cool. Let's just take all of those out, yeah, and add to the Project Ideas some cool projects like CoLd FUsiON! Yeah!" Get my point? Regards, Jani Kärkkäinen
Le ven 06/05/2005 à 08:42, Jani Kärkkäinen a écrit :
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:12:01PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
I wanted to require that you login to edit anyway, it was so easy to forget that I even forgot a few times. Do people want to go back to the old way, and allow even not logged in people edit?
New to the list, and with not much weight on my words, but still...
I gather a required log in would be the way to go. Why? Well, imagine your basic net troll stumbling on wine wiki. "Hey! I can edit these! Cool. Let's just take all of those out, yeah, and add to the Project Ideas some cool projects like CoLd FUsiON! Yeah!"
I'm not much worried about "take all of those out", it's easy to spot and put back the previous revision. What's more insidious is if some small things are changed (wrong facts, allusions, even typos added), those can take longer to spot and then you have to merge the original page and the correct modifications which took place after the problematic user came in. Vincent
participants (6)
-
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Jakob Eriksson -
Jani Kärkkäinen -
Michael Stefaniuc -
Mike Hearn -
Vincent Béron