Re: [Wikitech-l] Draft plan for 1.17 branch next week (Code review and making it to 1.17)
On 2010-12-03, Rob Lanphier wrote: Hi everyone, On IRC, Trevor lead the charge to Etherpad!, and some of us followed. This was the result: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_roadmap/1.17 It is unclear to me whether the plan is to branch from the latest reviewed code or trunk HEAD, assuming the latter then I think that code review needs to be a part of the schedule as it is by far the most time consuming part of the process and presumably needs to be complete before a deployment. The schedule suggests an intial deployment in January, but my understanding is that even if there were no further commits it would still take until March for it to catch up with HEAD. Robert ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] svn access to 1.16wmf4
Hello, Would it be possible to get commit rights to the 1.16wmf4 ? For now, I would focus on merging revisions for the CodeReview extension, no Core work yet :p cheers, -- Ashar Voultoiz ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Code review and making it to 1.17
I do not like the idea of releasing code that was not run on Wikimedia wikis for at least a week. That may result in a rather buggy 1.17. --vvv ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [Toolserver-l] alternative way to get wikipedia dump while server is down
There is a way to download wikidumps for any project / language, the data is from early 2009. I will detail the steps as a note for future reference. [...] Next step is either to copy a file using SCP or start your own FTP server on the EC2 instance and download the files that you need. You will need to pay a small fee but this is in the range of cents. Best, Diederik Thank you for your comprehensive description of accessing the archived data in EC2. Personally, I will consider it to get a dump that way in order to continue working. However, I am curious if there are any news about the regular server. Last update in http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Dataset1 was ten days ago and I wonder how likely it is to fix the server e.g. next week. Is there anybody here on the list who may update the wiki page? Thanks! Sven ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Code review and making it to 1.17
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote: I do not like the idea of releasing code that was not run on Wikimedia wikis for at least a week. That may result in a rather buggy 1.17. +1 -Chad ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Draft plan for 1.17 branch next week (Code review and making it to 1.17)
2010/12/4 Robert Leverington rob...@rhl.me.uk: It is unclear to me whether the plan is to branch from the latest reviewed code or trunk HEAD This was kind of overlooked by everyone in that discussion :( , assuming the latter then I think that code review needs to be a part of the schedule as it is by far the most time consuming part of the process and presumably needs to be complete before a deployment. Yes. The schedule suggests an intial deployment in January, but my understanding is that even if there were no further commits it would still take until March for it to catch up with HEAD. March has been mentioned by a few people now, and now you're even suggesting that /even with no further commits/ it would take that long. To me that seems overly pessimistic. The code review backlog in /trunk/phase3 was 775 revisions last time I checked (Saturday around 01:15 UTC). It shouldn't take 3 months to catch up with that. Of course less than 3 months doesn't necessarily mean it'll be a manageable amount of time, and there's WMF-deployed extensions to consider too. So I do think we should look at where the unreviewed revs are concentrated; if it turns out they're mostly recent, that'd be a strong case for moving the branch point into the past. Roan Kattouw (Catrope) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Draft plan for 1.17 branch next week (Code review and making it to 1.17)
On 2010-12-04, Roan Kattouw wrote: 2010/12/4 Robert Leverington rob...@rhl.me.uk: The schedule suggests an intial deployment in January, but my understanding is that even if there were no further commits it would still take until March for it to catch up with HEAD. March has been mentioned by a few people now, and now you're even suggesting that /even with no further commits/ it would take that long. To me that seems overly pessimistic. The code review backlog in /trunk/phase3 was 775 revisions last time I checked (Saturday around 01:15 UTC). It shouldn't take 3 months to catch up with that. The pessimism was not intentional, just noting my understanding of what others said. What you say sounds reasonable. Of course less than 3 months doesn't necessarily mean it'll be a manageable amount of time, and there's WMF-deployed extensions to consider too. So I do think we should look at where the unreviewed revs are concentrated; if it turns out they're mostly recent, that'd be a strong case for moving the branch point into the past. On the other hand this creates a huge amount of work in identifying and backporting any essential bug fixes between the branch point and HEAD at branching - I imagine probably more than it alleviates (albeit for different people). Either way this is something that needs to be considered prior to branching as it will change the schedule and allocation of resources (to me the current schedule seems overly optimistic in this respect). Robert ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Code review and making it to 1.17
Chad wrote: On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote: I do not like the idea of releasing code that was not run on Wikimedia wikis for at least a week. That may result in a rather buggy 1.17. +1 -Chad A completely +1 from me, too. But I don't think Rob were suggesting that. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Draft plan for 1.17 branch next week (Code review and making it to 1.17)
2010/12/5 Robert Leverington rob...@rhl.me.uk: On the other hand this creates a huge amount of work in identifying and backporting any essential bug fixes between the branch point and HEAD at branching - I imagine probably more than it alleviates (albeit for different people). Yes, there's a balance there. In the post you're replying to I said it should be considered if unreviewed revisions were skewed towards the recent ones, but this doesn't seem to be the case for /trunk/phase3 at least. See https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/mediawiki/wiki/User:Catrope/CR_stats#Distribution_of_unreviewed_revisions_in_phase3 for details (left column is a 3-digit revid prefix identifying a range of 100 revisions, right column is the number of new/fixme revs in that range): for instance, the past 7 days account for 5% of the review backlog, the past ~4 weeks for ~10%. However, we've only got good stats on phase3 at this time; I'll run them on phase3 plus WMF-deployed extensions tomorrow so we'll have the full picture. The crux of the above: recent revisions are a tiny fraction of the review backlog (the last ~4 weeks of commits account for only ~10% of the backlog), at least for /trunk/phase3. IMO this means there's no reason to branch off anything other than HEAD. The picture might look different for WMF-enabled extensions, I'll have stats on them tomorrow. Either way this is something that needs to be considered prior to branching as it will change the schedule and allocation of resources (to me the current schedule seems overly optimistic in this respect). I agree the review backlog won't magically fix itself over the holidays, which is why I call on everyone who can help to do so or ask their boss to be 'allowed' to spend time on it (I hear RobLa is allocating some people's time to this). Roan Kattouw (Catrope) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Code review and making it to 1.17
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote: I do not like the idea of releasing code that was not run on Wikimedia wikis for at least a week. That may result in a rather buggy 1.17. Also agree, as I've said elsewhere. Better to delay branching 1.17 an extra month or two than to release it when it hasn't been tested on Wikimedia sites. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Code review and making it to 1.17
2010/12/5 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com: On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote: I do not like the idea of releasing code that was not run on Wikimedia wikis for at least a week. That may result in a rather buggy 1.17. Also agree, as I've said elsewhere. Better to delay branching 1.17 an extra month or two than to release it when it hasn't been tested on Wikimedia sites. Possibly superfluous clarification: what we're talking about here is to branch 1.17wmf1 (i.e. WMF deployment), not an immediate 1.17 release candidate. Obviously we'd deploy first and release later, that's what we've always done AFAIK. Roan Kattouw (Catrope) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Draft plan for 1.17 branch next week (Code review and making it to 1.17)
Rob Lanphier wrote: Hi everyone, On IRC, Trevor lead the charge to Etherpad!, and some of us followed. This was the result: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_roadmap/1.17 This is an aggressive plan, starting with branching for 1.17 early next week. It is by no means official; Tim and Mark H are both named, but neither have weighed in, so don't take this as the plan, but as a proposal for discussion here. Rob It's nice having a plan. But I wonder who will assign those engineering resources? And what will they be unassigned from? Regarding the Release manager section, I have no problem aiding with merging (that is, provided I'm comfortable with the fix itself :) but I don't think that's something reserved to a few RM. Rather, if something is a bugfix affecting the branch, the commiter should backport it himself (or tag as 1.17, and delay the MFT until it gets reviewed). We can't assume that any bugfix will be seen and cherrypicked as appropiate (even with more than one person doing that work). ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Drafting the upcoming engineering overview
Do not block. The people of usa needs to know the truth. Plus our leaders be leading in a way that the people of the usa would like them too. Thank you. -Original Message- From: Rob Lanphier Sent: 9/23/2010 12:59:56 AM To: Wikimedia developers Subject: [Wikitech-l] Drafting the upcoming engineering overview Hi everyone, As you probably know, we're trying to get into the habit of providing a monthly overview of all WMF-sponsored engineering activity. The September update was posted to the techblog here: http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/09/wmf-engineering/ For October, we'd like to draft this in public so as to get the information out a little sooner, and to give you all the opportunity to help out. Here's where we're drafting this: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMF_Engineering_Overview_October_2010 Here's a very simple way you can help. If you see something on the list that you're interested in, but don't see the status for yet, ping one of us, then be bold and add what you learn to the appropriate wiki page. If you do know the status, by all means add it. Another useful thing to do: you'll notice that many of the project pages that the status post links to are pretty sparse. Same rules apply there. We'd love to get help keeping this up to date. Thanks! Rob ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Code review and making it to 1.17
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.com wrote: Possibly superfluous clarification: what we're talking about here is to branch 1.17wmf1 (i.e. WMF deployment), not an immediate 1.17 release candidate. Obviously we'd deploy first and release later, that's what we've always done AFAIK. Yup. The only wrinkle here is that we may want to branch 1.17 + all extensions (the tarball branch) at the same time we branch 1.17wmf1 + deployed extensions (the deployment branch). If we don't do that, then when it comes time to put together a tarball release, it'll be difficult to sync it with what is in deployment. Rob ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
