On 02/15/2010 07:25 PM, Domas Mituzas wrote: >> Was there some urgent production impact that required doing this with no >> notice? >> > Actually we had User-Agent header requirement for ages, it just failed to do > what it had to do for a while. Consider this to be a bugfix. >
Ok. I'm going to take that as "no". In the future, I think it would be better to let people know in advance about non-urgent changes that may break things for them. >> Was any impact analysis done on this? >> > Yup! > Would you care to share the results with us? In the future, I'd suggest giving basic info like that as part of an announcement. > Actually, at the moment this mostly affects crap sites that hot-load data > from us to display spamvertisements on hacked sites on internet. > That's another good thing to share as part of a change announcement: motivation for the change. > I don't know where your 'shoddy ISP' speculation fits in. > Last I looked, there were a lot of poorly maintained proxies out there, some of which mangle headers. It seemed reasonable to me that some of those are on low-rent ISPs in poor countries. If you have already done the work to prove that no legitimate users anywhere in the world are impacted by this change, then perhaps you could save us further discussion and just explain that? Thanks, William _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
