Last modified: 2012-08-09 18:25:45 UTC
See https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=VisualEditor:BugLinkSelection&action=history
Mass-moving items into VisualEditor product
Fixed and included in August 6th deployment.
Not fixed: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=VisualEditor:BugLinkSelection&diff=569584&oldid=569582
Ouch, did the deployment take place?
No. :-) Per http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Software_deployments#Ongoing it is scheduled to happen from 19 minutes' time, for up to three hours. Remarking as resolved.
(In reply to comment #5) > No. :-) Per http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Software_deployments#Ongoing it > is scheduled to happen from 19 minutes' time, for up to three hours. Remarking > as resolved. Is it deployed now so I can re-test these bugs?
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) >> No. :-) Per http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Software_deployments#Ongoing it >> is scheduled to happen from 19 minutes' time, for up to three hours. Remarking >> as resolved. > > Is it deployed now so I can re-test these bugs? Hmm, perhaps VisualEditor should have some kind of exposure of a version number or last deployment date? Given the frequent deployments and code changes, I think it'd be helpful for testing and bug-filing. I'm not sure if Special:Version covers this already. Perhaps a separate bug is needed? Re-opening this bug for now. Until the bug filer can verify that the bug has been fixed, it doesn't make much sense to mark it as such. We don't really use "verified" in our current Bugzilla workflow, though perhaps we ought to in the future.
(In reply to comment #7) > Re-opening this bug for now. Until the bug filer can verify that the bug has > been fixed, it doesn't make much sense to mark it as such. We don't really use > "verified" in our current Bugzilla workflow, though perhaps we ought to in the > future. Some of us are using it, see bug 39040.
Max - This bug is already explicitly tagged against a release milestone (this last Monday's), as you'd see if you looked. :-) Liangent - This is fixed and 'in live' as of yesterday, but unfortunately you won't be able to tell as bug 39111 has broken the link inspector entirely (sorry, we should have tested this before deployment). Will live-patch in the next few hours, at which point I'll ping back on this bug.
(In reply to comment #9) > Max - This bug is already explicitly tagged against a release milestone (this > last Monday's), as you'd see if you looked. :-) James, I saw the bug filer not being able to verify that the bug was fixed. That's more than enough to mark it as reopened. Start meeting your deployment schedule and provide a way to measure which version of VisualEditor is deployed (in addition to, you know, fixing the actual reported bug) and then you can comment about what I did or did not notice.
(In reply to comment #5) > No. :-) Per http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Software_deployments#Ongoing it > is scheduled to happen from 19 minutes' time, for up to three hours. Remarking > as resolved. I looked at <http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Software_deployments#Ongoing> and its associated page history and I have no idea what this comment is referring to. There's no mention of VisualEditor on that page. The only mention of VisualEditor I can find is at <http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Software_deployments/2012_archive> in an entry dated June 21.
(In reply to comment #7) > Hmm, perhaps VisualEditor should have some kind of exposure of a version number > or last deployment date? Given the frequent deployments and code changes, I > think it'd be helpful for testing and bug-filing. I'm not sure if > Special:Version covers this already. Perhaps a separate bug is needed? > Special:Version lists the git hash of the deployed version, which isn't perfect (and was out of date until just now). There is also a version number there which is currently just set to 0.1, I suppose we could start using that field, either by incrementing it each time or by using something like 0.1-20120806. Anyway, as for deployment frequency: not counting the fixup deployments that occurred yesterday because various things were broken, there is only one VE deployment every two weeks, on the first Monday of every deployment cycle. The most recent deployment was last Monday (Aug 6), the next one will be on Aug 20, then two weeks after that, etc. This is because our code comes along for the ride with the 1.20wmf* deployments (see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.20/Roadmap for the schedule) and the only wiki where VE is currently deployed (mw.org) is part of phase 0, which occurs on the first Monday. Hope that clears things up a bit.
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #7) > > Hmm, perhaps VisualEditor should have some kind of exposure of a version number > > or last deployment date? Given the frequent deployments and code changes, I > > think it'd be helpful for testing and bug-filing. I'm not sure if > > Special:Version covers this already. Perhaps a separate bug is needed? > > > Special:Version lists the git hash of the deployed version, which isn't perfect > (and was out of date until just now). There is also a version number there > which is currently just set to 0.1, I suppose we could start using that field, > either by incrementing it each time or by using something like 0.1-20120806. It'd certainly be nice for debugging, yes. I was thinking about some kind of user preference or URL parameter or something that would add an HTML comment with useful debug info in it. I can imagine a few data points being helpful, but particularly VisualEditor version number, so people don't end up chasing down bugs that were fixed a week ago. > Anyway, as for deployment frequency: not counting the fixup deployments that > occurred yesterday because various things were broken, there is only one VE > deployment every two weeks, on the first Monday of every deployment cycle. The > most recent deployment was last Monday (Aug 6), the next one will be on Aug 20, > then two weeks after that, etc. This is because our code comes along for the > ride with the 1.20wmf* deployments (see > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.20/Roadmap for the schedule) and the > only wiki where VE is currently deployed (mw.org) is part of phase 0, which > occurs on the first Monday. > > Hope that clears things up a bit. Yes, thank you, that was very helpful. I've no idea how the hell anyone is supposed to know that (beyond reading your comment here on this bug). It'd be nice if http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Software_deployments and https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.20/Roadmap noted this. Is this only for VisualEditor or are all Wikimedia extensions updated every two weeks now?
(In reply to comment #13) > Yes, thank you, that was very helpful. I've no idea how the hell anyone is > supposed to know that (beyond reading your comment here on this bug). Yeah, I apologize for the poor discoverability of this information :( > It'd be > nice if http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Software_deployments and > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.20/Roadmap noted this. Is this only > for VisualEditor or are all Wikimedia extensions updated every two weeks now? All WMF extensions are updated from master every two weeks, same as core. Some WMF-maintained extensions have additional deployment windows scheduled to accelerate deployments, but everything is on the two-weekly deployment train. If people want their deployments to be slower, we tell them to keep their code out of master until it's ready.
