Talk:HTTP: Difference between revisions
Undo vandalism
m (Yes...) |
(Undo vandalism) |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 47:
: That said, looking at https://rosettacode.org/mw/index.php?title=HTTP&type=revision&diff=315692&oldid=304000 I agree that the missing output sections should be restored. (Possibly with some markup inserted if there's some crude cdn or anti-malware system we're offending somehow.) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 16:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Pete Lomax - there is strong risk that a very dangerous precedent is being set. The solutions have been subsequently modified and probably they will work (not sure about the AWK version). The Batch File solution has been removed with little justification - are we going to let new users arbitrarily decide what is a programming language and what isn't or what version of a programming laguage should be used or what comments are "allowable" etc. ?
That all these massive changes by new users didn't receive any moderator comment until Pete Lomax pointed it out is also very concerning.
--[[User:Tigerofdarkness|Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]) 18:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
: Similar stuff is now also occurring on [[Concurrent_computing]] by [[User_talk:PUtsApGpN7]]. Thundergnat appears to be aware of the situation and has already reversed changes to [[JSON]] (see [[User talk:NUKnWJiJTn]]) and posted a remark about comments to [[User talk:LVrOk6FqRY]]. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 18:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
:: Thinking about this -- the output sections were removed for code where the url being used was changed. This suggests that those changes went untested. Which, itself, is a cause for concern. (I am debating with myself whether I should go through and revert the changes for those seven entries...) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 10:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
::: I am aware of the recent bout of mass changes to several tasks. I have several large projects I am trying to juggle for $work so haven't been able to dedicate as much time to my non-bill-paying activities. I am mostly ambivalent about changing the HTTP URL to w3.org, possibly mildly against as I'd prefer not to imply association or place uninvited load on their servers. I haven't really looked closely at the (140+!!) changes made to the [[HTTP]] task yet, though a quick glance shows several that are just wrong. My inclination is to just roll them all back since I really don't have time to review each one carefully. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 12:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
::: Sigh, too much time has passed to do a simple "Rollback all changes", I started doing piecemeal reverts but that got tiresome quickly and had multiple edit conflicts to resolve so I just ended up reverting to the revision current as of November 1st. There may have been some useful edits in there but they were lost in the noise. For future reference, from here on, if a new member with no history comes in and starts making large changes without discussion or consultation, I will summarily revert the changes and ban them. I don't have time or patience for this. This time it will be one week as there wasn't a policy in place. In the future it may be permanent. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 12:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your efforts, Thundergnat. I realise that being an RC moderator is not something that you get paid for. --[[User:Tigerofdarkness|Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]) 15:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
== RE: Recent changes ==
Hi everyone I'm the one who made all those changes.
The reason for the name is because honestly I disagree with the requirement for an email, password, username to edit on this website, and so created a random username, random password, and used a temporary email to make this account and all others I used to edit pages.
The reason for the edits, on the HTTP task specifically, is because the task was not specific enough, allowing solutions to be accepted if they redirected from HTTP to HTTPS, or even if the URL lead to a HTTP response code of Permanently Moved.
I specified the task so that a standard result was expected from solutions (plain text HTTP response shown on a screen, you seriously can't get more simple yet specific than that).
I edited all the solutions to change ONLY the white space, the URL that was used (so that the URL was standard in all solutions, which seems to me to be such an obvious requirement that I doubt how dedicated to this webpage the person who created the original task is), and then removed the output.
I removed the output because, since my task was so precise in its requirement, it was completely clear that all solutions would output the same response anyway so why include output?
You've already removed all the changes, which is honestly fair enough.
However I have a serious problem with you removing some requirements for the task which seem as obvious as requiring a URL to fetch in the task.
It's obvious that in the ENTIRETY of this website it should be a requirement for solutions to use external (non standard) libraries ONLY if the task is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to solve without the external library.
It's honestly baffling that whoever is behind this website didn't think of this, and I've lost the motivation to help develop its content.
Cya, if I could delete this account, then I would, however it doesn't even look like I can do that, so I'm just going to forget it and let it die like all the other ones.
| |||