On 8 June 2012 10:12, Ryan Lane <rlan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The problem was never IPv6. The problem was always about the unspoken > > expectation that everyone else would just drop everything else they have > > going on to patch up all the stuff that got broken as a result of this > > sudden change. I get that this was an exciting step for the engineers > who > > got it done, and I tip my hat to all of them for pulling it off; from > that > > sense it's been a successful implementation. I also get that at least > 30% > > of WMF users on hundreds of projects -that's roughly how many use one or > > more gadgets, scripts or tools that didn't work after this switch - have > > now had their "editing experience" negatively affected, and that almost > all > > of it could have been avoided with a month or two of notice so that > patches > > could be written and resources could be put into place in advance. One > has > > to hope this was a knowledge gap and that Engineering did not actually > know > > the extent to which it would impact the projects and the end-users. > > > > Are the breakages on the site really that massive? We've been getting > little to no reports of breakages. >
>From what I understand, most of these breakages are in tools and scripts developed and operated by volunteer developers, not WMF developers. The big one is Huggle, which on enwp is used by a large majority of admins and recent changes patrollers. There are additional notes on the enwp village pump (technical) that appear to be related, although I do not have the expertise to assess this. I have been told that there are parallel issues on some of the other large projects, although I don't have direct knowledge. > > If you are asking for us to notify the community earlier, I accept > that. We did this last minute because we wanted to participate on IPv6 > day, and we had a few free days to do so right before it. I apologize > that it's poorly affecting your workflow, but your level of anger is > unwarranted. We've been pretty good about announcing things in > general. All user-facing HTTPS changes were announced weeks before > they were made, for instance. Remember, that this is the ops group > you're complaining about, and not engineering as a whole, and we > rarely make user-facing changes. > Yes, the team has been good at giving advance heads-ups, even for things that are relatively low impact, and it has been a very positive experience. Thus this unexpectedly short notice is more jarring. I think one opportunity that was not considered was taking it live on IPv6 Day as a "trial" and then pulling it back to allow everyone else to fix what didn't work during the trial day. Yes, it is important to test things; no, it's not necessary to make a permanent change without assessing the results of the test. > > If you are complaining about things being broken, we need to know > exactly what they are, or we can't help. Tell us whats broken here, or > even better, add some bugs. > > As I've noted, almost everything I'm aware of that is genuinely not functioning correctly is stuff that is written by and maintained by volunteer developers, not the WMF, so bugzillas aren't going to help here. For non-WMF related reasons, I use very few scripts, gadgets or tools so I don't have the experience to tell you which volunteer-produced tools are or are not functioning well. Risker _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
