r56486 MediaWiki - Code Review archive

Repository:MediaWiki
Revision:< r56485‎ | r56486 | r56487 >
Date:02:15, 17 September 2009
Author:aaron
Status:ok (Comments)
Tags:todo 
Comment:
partial revert of r55447: breaks url wpName prefilling
Modified paths:
  • /trunk/phase3/includes/templates/Userlogin.php (modified) (history)

Diff [purge]

Index: trunk/phase3/includes/templates/Userlogin.php
——@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@
157157 <td class="mw-label"><label for='wpName2'><?php $this->msg('yourname') ?></label></td>
158158 <td class="mw-input">
159159 <?php
160 - echo Html::input( 'wpName', null, 'text', array(
 160+ echo Html::input( 'wpName', $this->data['name'], 'text', array(
161161 'class' => 'loginText',
162162 'id' => 'wpName2',
163163 'tabindex' => '1',

Follow-up revisions

RevisionCommit summaryAuthorDate
r56487merged r56486: partial revert of r55447: breaks url wpName prefillingaaron02:17, 17 September 2009
r56575Follow up r56486: revert RELEASE-NOTES (which was incomplete anyway)aaron01:06, 18 September 2009

Past revisions this follows-up on

RevisionCommit summaryAuthorDate
r55447Don't prefill new account name, and autofocus...simetrical21:40, 21 August 2009

Comments

#Comment by Simetrical (talk | contribs)   13:17, 17 September 2009

. . . Um, did you read my commit message? That was the point: it doesn't make any sense to prefill the field with your current account name if you're creating a new account. The name will already be taken, so it should not be prefilled.

Also, you missed RELEASE-NOTES.

#Comment by Aaron Schulz (talk | contribs)   01:03, 18 September 2009

a) Yes I read it b) People were using it for assisted account creations

#Comment by Aaron Schulz (talk | contribs)   01:04, 18 September 2009

Also the summary just mentioned the current name/cookies...not url params

#Comment by Simetrical (talk | contribs)   14:12, 18 September 2009

Okay, so the feature was apparently that the name should get prefilled based on URL parameters, but not cookies. It would then be reasonable for me to redo a revised version of r55447 that only suppresses the value if cookies are provided. That's fine, I see your point, and it's fair to revert it entirely for the time being.

Now could you please try to be more verbose in your commit messages in the future? Especially when reverting people's commits? You could have easily explained what was wrong in your commit message, at least linking to a report of the problem you were fixing. As it stands, it's usually very difficult to figure out what you mean to do with a lot of your commits without actually asking you, because your commit messages are usually just a few words, and normally only describe the commit without giving any reasons. It's hard to cooperate on a project if you can't figure out what other people are trying to do.

Status & tagging log