I have never said that moving to IPv6 is a bad idea.
What I am
complaining about is the dismissive attitude taken toward the volunteers
that are stuck cleaning up the mess when Engineering decides to do
something, apparently on the spur of the moment, without telling anyone
outside their own little walled garden. It would have taken one email to
the Checkuser mailing list two months ago saying "We're really serious
about trying to get IPv6 up and running for June 5" and people would have
been pulling together the resources and making the software changes for the
various tools we use. But no, we're told we're being wimps for having the
nerve to complain that we've just been steamrollered, and that advance
notice and the opportunity to plan are unimportant. Bluntly put, you're
not the ones cleaning up the mess, we are; our job is easier if we have
time to order in the extra mops.
Your tone is non-helpful. Maybe you should take a day or two to calm yourself.
We're not being dismissive; this truly was a spur of the moment thing.
We had thoughts we might do this for IPv6 day, just like we did last
year, but higher priority work constantly comes up. At the last minute
we decided to kill this off at the hackathon (which, by the way, last
year's hackathon is when we started this work on the ops side).
That said, it's pretty obvious that IPv6 has been coming for years.
It's been supported in the software for quite some time, and we're
actively running out of IPv4 addresses (I used one of our last
available IPv4 addresses in esams for HTTPS last year). There are a
lot of bugs in bugzilla about it. I don't think it's fair to blame the
engineers for lack of foresight.
- Ryan