I don't think that Risker is wrong, it is true, that ipv6 was enabled on production almost with no warning and since it wasn't available on any test site before, neither on wmflabs it was almost impossible for developers to fix all issues in tools related to this. For example one of tools that broke was huggle, people are complaining now at us (huggle devs) that it doesn't work, and my reply is: We knew that, we know that, but no one gave us a chance to prepare. I have no working ipv6 wiki I could test it on, neither there is any on wmflabs. So when it was enabled on production we couldn't be prepared for this. Huggle is not the only tool which broke, there are many others and devs never had a chance to adapt to ipv6 without any test wiki to try it on.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Strainu <[email protected]> wrote: > 2012/6/8 Risker <[email protected]>: >> The issues I point out with the IPv6 transition are social issues. Nobody >> expects Engineering to go all touchy-feely. But we do expect to be treated >> with respect. Next time, give us a month or two of warning. And please >> don't insult people by pretending this was a spur of the moment decision: >> the more I read, the more clear it is that for months IPv6 Day was the >> target for bringing this online. > > Hi, > First of all, let me clear up any possible misunderstanding: I am not > affiliated with the Engineering team other than being a programmer > myself and having an insight on how cool, but non-core ideas (such as > IPv6 for the WMF) are pushed in such an environment. I also agree that > the WMF has more than once ignored the communities. > > But from the same discussions that you read, my impression is that, > while it was clear since 11/6/6 for everybody that the best moment for > deployment was 12/6/6, the actual testing and bugfixing began very > close to the due date. This is why I said the decision was taken in > the last minute. I also don't agree with your implication that there > is much mess to be picked-up after the IPv6 rollup, nor with your > suggested solution - the checkuser distribution list is much too > limited for the implications of this deployment. > > Ryan has sent his email while I was composing mine so I might be > repeating some of the stuff he said, but he made a decent > justification of why this was a last-minute decision. > > All the best to you too, > Strainu > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
