Yes. Let's add documentation for that.

Change 566869 had a related patch set uploaded (by Ammarpad; owner: Ammarpad):
[mediawiki/extensions/GrowthExperiments@master] GrowthExperiments: Document message parameter

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/566869

Change 566869 merged by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/extensions/GrowthExperiments@master] GrowthExperiments: Document message parameter

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/566869

/qqq doesn't need a patch, just edit twn as if it is a translation.

Actually no.

git<=>twn sync happens daily or twice a week (It's latter for non-wmf repos but not sure about wmf gerrit) — twn edits are 100% instant for translators.

In T243457#5828705, @revi wrote:

Actually no.

git<=>twn sync happens daily or twice a week (It's latter for non-wmf repos but not sure about wmf gerrit) — twn edits are 100% instant for translators.

I am referring to the movement of the change to the actual repo not when translators see it on translatewiki.

It is less efficient (I don't think the speed of git repo commit is important at all when the authoritative source is twn) — you have to wait 2 seconds (waiting for twn to load) versus at least 24 hours (max 3-4 days) — as a rule of thumb you should edit everything that is not en.json via twn.

MediaWiki.org Localization#translatewiki.net:

Only the English messages and their initial documentation must be done in the source code.

It says "initial"; this means 'subsequent documentations' are to be done at TWN.

In T243457#5828718, @revi wrote:

MediaWiki.org Localization#translatewiki.net:

Only the English messages and their initial documentation must be done in the source code.

It says "initial"; this means 'subsequent documentations' are to be done at TWN.

That was not written in stone. I am not sure why you took umbrage at this minor thing, when the code has already been approved and merged by @Catrope. Doesn't he know about that? I don't have ability to merge the code, so I think you're directing your anger at the wrong person.It's Catrope who you should inform that that 'initial' stuff. You can make a patch to revert it, then do it the way you like. /last reply

I'm not angry at you, I just think you should not be editing /qqq via gerrit. What is done is done, indeed, and undoing what-is-done to prove a small point is pointless, so I was telling you you should rather just edit twn. I'm sorry if you felt I was angry at you.