On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Tyler Romeo <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Steven Walling <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > If your patch causes a serious UX regression like this, it's going to get > > reverted. The core patch involved was being deployed to Wikimedia sites / > > impacting MobileFrontEnd users today. If we had more time in the > deployment > > cycle to wait and the revert was a simple disagreement, then waiting > would > > be appropriate. It is obvious in this case no one tested the core change > on > > mobile. That's unacceptable. > > > > You quoted my email, but didn't seem to read it. Changes to MediaWiki core > should not have to take into account extensions that incorrectly rely on > its interface, and a breakage in a deployed extension should result in an > undeployment and a fix to that extension, not a revert of the core patch. > Changes to MediaWiki core should avoid breaking Wikipedia in production, especially since we aggressively push new versions of core and extensions to Wikipedia every few weeks. For years and years and years we've been very free about reverting things that break. No one, including old-timers like me and Tim, has the "right" to not have something reverted. If it needs to be reverted it will be reverted -- there is nothing personal in a revert. Remember it can always be put back once all problems are resolved. Is there anything specific in the communications involved that you found was problematic, other than a failure to include a backlink in the initial revert? -- brion _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
