I would suggest a special window. I normally do the late window so I can see if Catrope can come an hour early for one and we do it then.
Samuel On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 20:48, Tyler Cipriani <[email protected]> wrote: > On 20-05-18 16:32:59, RhinosF1 - wrote: > >My only concern with that is that between the 2 tasks it would be 5/6 > >patches in the SWAT window. > > Yes, this work looks like it will consume a whole window easily :( > > >It would also be my first mediawiki core + extensions SWAT so are the > >patches safe to +2 during / just before SWAT or Should I get that done > >before? > > On process I think might work: > > * Merge core changes to master early in the week you plan to SWAT (but > after branch cut for the week) > * Prepare cherry-picks to backport to current stable + branch to go out > that week > * Add cherry-picks to deploy window > > It's likely this is more than 6 patches :\ > > Syncing with a SWATter prior to SWAT and ensuring that you pick a window > with some time after it (should you need more time to deploy) OR making > a special window on the deployment calendar[0] for this set of changes > would be best. > > -- Tyler > > [0]: <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deployments> > > >On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 16:25, Tyler Cipriani <[email protected]> > >wrote: > > > >> Hi Samuel > >> > >> On 20-05-18 09:57:54, RhinosF1 - wrote: > >> >On https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/core/+/596424/, it was > >> >raised correctly that namespaceDupes.php would need to be ran. > >> > > >> >https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/core/+/596424/ and > >> >https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/bug:%20T251287 can mostly run with > the > >> >train (expect the mediawiki config patch) but all require > namespaceDupes > >> to > >> >be ran and on https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/bug:%20T251287 could > do > >> >with being deployed as close together as possible to avoid > >> >inconsistently translated namespaces. > >> > > >> >Would as mentioned SWAT be better for all 5 patches or should we let > what > >> >can ride with the train and deploy the one config patch shortly after > and > >> >run for both wikis in that window? or could we ask the train runners > to do > >> >that? > >> > >> What you're describing sounds like it would be a good candidate for SWAT > >> deployment. My reasoning is that (1) it is atypical to run maintenance > >> scripts as part of the train and (2) there are no guarantees that a > >> train won't rollback. > >> > >> That is, backporting to a version that is stable ensures that we don't > >> end up having rolled forward to all wikis, run the maintenance script, > >> and then having to rollback due to an unrelated problem. Additionally, > >> the log triage that follows a train window may mean that we can't > >> guarantee a timely deploy of the configuration change following train. > >> > >> To me, this feels safer/faster/easier as a SWAT deployment; even though > >> this might make for a particularly long SWAT window. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> -- Tyler > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikitech-l mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > >-- > >Thanks, > >Samuel > >_______________________________________________ > >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 -- Thanks, Samuel _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
