On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Markus Glaser <gla...@hallowelt.biz> wrote:
> Let me be clear about one thing: this is a matter of unclear > responsibilites. I'm not blaming anyone personally for what they did. Let's > clarify the process (maybe here on this list) and make _better_ mistakes > tomorrow :) > Yup, agreed. In my opinion, the time to branch should be up to you (as the tarball publishers), and we (WMF) number our deployment branches (1.2?wmf??) to make sense with that. Anything dependent on the timing of the tarball release should be coordinated with you all. There's not a great reason to assume that 1.24wmf22 is automatically the last in the 1.24 series. Sure, 1.23wmf22 was the last in the 1.23 series, but we had 1.22wmf24, and back when we were on a two week cycle, we had 1.21wmf12 ( x 2 = wmf24), and 1.20wmf12. If you go off of blind mathematical calculation based on weekly WMF deployments and two releases a year, that would imply we can have 1.24wmf26. However, given that we're not yet that predictable (we occassionally don't deploy some weeks), we shouldn't automatically peg the tarball releases to a specific wmfXX number. It would be good, however, to have this timeline published somewhere sooner so that everyone is aware of the target. While we're thinking of it, can we just publish the 1.25 timeline now (somewhere obvious to everyone involved) so that there's no confusion come April/May/June? The obvious place for both the 1.24 timeline and the 1.25 timeline would seem to me to be [[MediaWiki 1.24/Roadmap]] and [[MediaWiki 1.24/Roadmap]] respectively. Rob _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
