Erik Moeller wrote:
What would be the disadvantage of having a single I'd like the latest
and greatest changes once they come in preference for our users? The
main disadvantage I see is that we'd need to temporarily retain two
codepaths for significant user-facing changes, potentially
On 05/07/2013 08:47 AM, Andre Klapper wrote:
On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 12:52 -0700, Greg Grossmeier wrote:
Also, the majority of bugs that
are in the Highest/Immediate priority level (from my gut assessment, I
don't have the data here) are found after a deploy to non-WP projects.
I agree with
quote name=Sumana Harihareswara date=2013-05-07 time=10:20:05 -0400
Backing that impression up with Bugzilla data:
tl;dr: That's hard.
snip
The results don't back up my impression.
One potential reason: Development teams file tickets *at some point* and
don't see priority immediately,
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
We may want to consider at least putting some such scaffolding for
beta-prod desktop modes into place before shifting to weekly
deployments, although if that holds up this change significantly, I'd
be in favor of making
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:20 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The reason I ask about a distinction is that there have been a lot of
changes to Wikimedia wikis lately and likely more to come, as the
Wikimedia
quote name=Leslie Carr date=2013-05-07 time=11:43:47 -0700
I think this is awesome for features ... but if we're putting work
into this, I would love even more to have a clustered a+b production
environment, such that 10% of folks are put on the new release
(cluster a) and then it gets
On 05/07/2013 03:02 PM, Greg Grossmeier wrote:
3) New wmfXX released to 10% of cluster
- 10% being something like: test, test2, mediawiki.org, and some of
the non-'pedia project sites
- Our users do the testing ;-)
I was interpreting Leslie as saying 10% cross-cut throughout. I.E.
On 05/07/2013 04:46 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
I was interpreting Leslie as saying 10% cross-cut throughout. I.E. 10%
of German Wiktionary, 10% of Japanese Wikinews, 10% of English
Wikipedia, 10% of everything.
That would mean we would really get wide testing before it rolled out to
the
quote name=Matthew Flaschen date=2013-05-07 time=16:47:32 -0400
On 05/07/2013 04:46 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
I was interpreting Leslie as saying 10% cross-cut throughout. I.E. 10%
of German Wiktionary, 10% of Japanese Wikinews, 10% of English
Wikipedia, 10% of everything.
That
Leslie Carr wrote:
I think this is awesome for features ... but if we're putting work
into this, I would love even more to have a clustered a+b production
environment, such that 10% of folks are put on the new release
(cluster a) and then it gets pushed over to cluster b. Then we can
also test
Hello all,
Let's move our MediaWiki deploy cycle to weekly instead of 2-week.
This will also reduce the number of standing deployment windows
throughout the week by having those projects/teams simply ride the
MediaWiki train.
== Current situation ==
Right now, a new version of MediaWiki is
On Mon, 06 May 2013 21:04:39 +0200, Greg Grossmeier g...@wikimedia.org wrote:
It takes up to 2 weeks for new features/bug fixes to be rolled out to
the various Wikimedia wikis.
Four weeks, actually, if your change gets merged just after a branching point.
(2 weeks until next branching +
Le 06/05/13 21:04, Greg Grossmeier a écrit :
Let's move our MediaWiki deploy cycle to weekly instead of 2-week.
As long as we tend to the hour, I am fine :-]
Weekly deploy is a bit of a challenge since we will have less time to
figure out a solution for any blocking bug, but overall I think it
Greg Grossmeier wrote:
== What are the drawbacks of two-weeks? ==
These are mostly known by everyone so I'll just simply state the most
obvious one :-)
It takes up to 2 weeks for new features/bug fixes to be rolled out to
the various Wikimedia wikis.
This is not a bad thing, though. Two
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:20 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The reason I ask about a distinction is that there have been a lot of
changes to Wikimedia wikis lately and likely more to come, as the
Wikimedia Foundation has gotten larger and has more dedicated tech
resources. Overall,
No negative experiences at all Erik. The only real problems we've run into
are people complaining they weren't aware of editing features that we
pushed to mobile that users were not aware of due to not using mobile. I
reckon this would be less of an issue in desktop.
I would ___ love ___ to see a
16 matches
Mail list logo
