https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41428
--- Comment #9 from Jarry1250 <[email protected]> 2012-10-28 23:50:50 UTC --- If I can have the luxury of cutting out the bits I agree with... (In reply to comment #8) > I'm not sure that this was the precise sequence of events. AFAIK as soon as > the > culprit was identified, ^demon went ahead and disabled it. [13:29:33] <Jarry1250> Hey all. At an editathon, so can't track down very well (may have already been reported) [13:29:39] <Jarry1250> but in IE I'm getting an exception in http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.21wmf2/extensions/EventLogging/modules/ext.EventLogging.js [13:32:33] <Jarry1250> Line 115 [...] by my reckoning I ping you Ori, I ping S Page (you're both still asleep I'm guessing). Then Chris comes along, we have a chat, he files this bug, then thedj pings Reedy, but he's AFK. Then there's a gap in the logs - perhaps discussion continued in #mediawiki or whatever. ServerAdminLog thinks ^demon rolled back at 16:49. It would have been nice to have a rollback in under three hours, I think, and that's assuming I was the first one to report this. > > I think we dropped the ball here, if only temporarily. > > Agreed. I'm responsible, and I'm sorry for being careless. In the future, I'll > be more disciplined about running tests on a complete browser matrix as a > precondition for merging / deploying code. Sure, mistakes happen, not a problem. But I'm inclined to think the process could have worked slightly better in some way-I'm not sure what though. Do we have enough staff for 24 hour rollback coverage? Or do we enforce (and make easier to trigger) more pre-deployment tests? Either? Both? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
