Moin,
"MediaWiki 1.6 is not released yet, even though MediaWiki 1.6alpha is currently running on all Wikimedia sites (since August 2005)".
Ouch, so 1.6 is in Alpha stage for now about 7 months. I am afraid I have to ask the questin again:
* Is there a roadmap/release schedule telling us when people running other wikis can enjoy the features of 1.6, too?
I would like to upgrade a few wikis, but without a stable release I am unable to do so - running alpha code on a production wiki isn't such a good idea if you don't have the great network admins from Wikipedia in the background :)
Thanx for your time,
Tels
Tels wrote:
- Is there a roadmap/release schedule telling us when people running other
wikis can enjoy the features of 1.6, too?
The current evil plan is to move to quarterly snapshot releases.
Since we're doing continuous integration and keeping The Primary Code on a production site, in theory we can make production-quality releases at any time (such as we are able); roughly every 3 months should be fast enough for the 'I want features!' crowd, hopefully!
1.6.0 will release next week.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Moin,
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 20:04, Brion Vibber wrote:
Tels wrote:
- Is there a roadmap/release schedule telling us when people running
other wikis can enjoy the features of 1.6, too?
The current evil plan is to move to quarterly snapshot releases.
Since we're doing continuous integration and keeping The Primary Code on a production site, in theory we can make production-quality releases at any time (such as we are able); roughly every 3 months should be fast enough for the 'I want features!' crowd, hopefully!
Yes, thats enough releases - if you release more often, people need to upgrade more often, too :D
1.6.0 will release next week.
Wowa, second time I am responsible for a release! (just kidding! :)
Anyway, thanx for the work and explanation, I know doing releases is extra work.
Best wishes,
Tels
Tels wrote:
1.6.0 will release next week.
Wowa, second time I am responsible for a release! (just kidding! :)
Actually, Evan Prodromou talked me into this schedule this weekend, I just forgot to tell anyone. :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Moin,
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 21:23, Brion Vibber wrote:
Tels wrote:
1.6.0 will release next week.
Wowa, second time I am responsible for a release! (just kidding! :)
Actually, Evan Prodromou talked me into this schedule this weekend, I just forgot to tell anyone. :)
You had to shatter my gleem, hadn't you :D
Best wishes,
Tels
When there is a significant release like this 1.6, are their typically upgrade operations that have to be performed on the database to bring it up to new functionality ? Say for example, moving from 1.5.6 to 1.6.
--Hiram ========================== http://www.hiram.ws/adopt/ ==========================
Hiram Clawson wrote:
When there is a significant release like this 1.6, are their typically upgrade operations that have to be performed on the database to bring it up to new functionality ? Say for example, moving from 1.5.6 to 1.6.
See the file UPGRADE in the MediaWiki distribution.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 31/03/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Hiram Clawson wrote:
When there is a significant release like this 1.6, are their typically upgrade operations that have to be performed on the database to bring it up to new functionality ? Say for example, moving from 1.5.6 to 1.6.
See the file UPGRADE in the MediaWiki distribution.
And have the obligatory...
1.5.6!? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING RUNNING SOFTWARE THAT OLD? UPGRADE, MAN!
Rob Church
Moin,
On Friday 31 March 2006 03:09, Rob Church wrote:
On 31/03/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Hiram Clawson wrote:
When there is a significant release like this 1.6, are their typically upgrade operations that have to be performed on the database to bring it up to new functionality ? Say for example, moving from 1.5.6 to 1.6.
See the file UPGRADE in the MediaWiki distribution.
And have the obligatory...
1.5.6!? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING RUNNING SOFTWARE THAT OLD? UPGRADE, MAN!
If the wiki is an internal wiki, with no outside access and a small, restricted user set (e.g, you know them personally and can whack them if they do stupid things), there is no need to always upgrade to the latest stable version.
For anything else, listen to Rob.
Best wishes,
Tels
Tels schreef:
Moin,
On Friday 31 March 2006 03:09, Rob Church wrote:
On 31/03/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Hiram Clawson wrote:
When there is a significant release like this 1.6, are their typically upgrade operations that have to be performed on the database to bring it up to new functionality ? Say for example, moving from 1.5.6 to 1.6.
See the file UPGRADE in the MediaWiki distribution.
And have the obligatory...
1.5.6!? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING RUNNING SOFTWARE THAT OLD? UPGRADE, MAN!
If the wiki is an internal wiki, with no outside access and a small, restricted user set (e.g, you know them personally and can whack them if they do stupid things), there is no need to always upgrade to the latest stable version.
For anything else, listen to Rob.
Best wishes,
Tels
I agree We have a documenting system running on version 1.3.5. It all works fine
Ruud
As we're on the subject of updates, are there any plans to make them (semi-)automated? Quarterly updates that have to be done manually represent quite an administrative overhead for some sites. On the other hand RPMs distributed by yum/apt would be great as they'd also allow urgent security updates to be distributed quickly.
Of course there's the issue of updating the database - but is it feasible? Perhaps there are already plans in pipeline, anyone?
HumanCell .org wrote:
As we're on the subject of updates, are there any plans to make them (semi-)automated?
cvs up -dP && php update.php
;)
Quarterly updates that have to be done manually represent quite an administrative overhead for some sites. On the other hand RPMs distributed by yum/apt would be great as they'd also allow urgent security updates to be distributed quickly.
You can use your distribution's packaging system, if they have it and you dare. At least Debian, Gentoo, and FreeBSD have MediaWiki packages, though I don't know how up to date.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Brion Vibber wrote:
HumanCell .org wrote:
As we're on the subject of updates, are there any plans to make them (semi-)automated?
cvs up -dP && php update.php
;)
:-) I am just glad about every mediawiki update which doesn't change the database schema or charset. Its even worse when you run more than one wiki, like I do.
Quarterly updates that have to be done manually represent quite an administrative overhead for some sites. On the other hand RPMs distributed by yum/apt would be great as they'd also allow urgent security updates to be distributed quickly.
You can use your distribution's packaging system, if they have it and you dare. At least Debian, Gentoo, and FreeBSD have MediaWiki packages, though I don't know how up to date.
it is also in Fedora Extras for Fedora Core 5: mediawiki-1.5.7-1.fc5
I haven't dared to try it either.
christof
On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 10:04 -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
The current evil plan is to move to quarterly snapshot releases.
Since we're doing continuous integration and keeping The Primary Code on a production site, in theory we can make production-quality releases at any time (such as we are able); roughly every 3 months should be fast enough for the 'I want features!' crowd, hopefully!
Part of me says "yay!" and part of me says "eek!". Questions:
1. How long will security updates be available for a major release? It would suck to /have/ to make major upgrades every 3 months just to keep on the security update train. 2. Is next week going to be "rc1", or is the whole release candidate phase considered a sign of weakness ;-)
It seems that six-month cycles are all the rage now. Three month cycles are so 2002.
Rob
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org