Wine Wiki Status

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

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 [e-mail]
   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.

[Jakob Eriksson]

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:
> - 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.
> - 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 [e-mail]
>   with a subject prefix of 'Wiki:' is fine, or
>   directly to me if you prefer).
> - 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.

[Mike Hearn]

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

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

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?

[Michael Stefaniuc]

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

[Jani Kärkkäinen]

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

[Vincent Béron]

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