Hello,
On <https://phab.wiki/253096> there's a request to remove the Insider
and Listings extensions from it.wikivoyage.
While it appears to be doable (it doesn't look like we'll need to
backup old data or that those extensions do DB changes, I might be
wrong), the task mentions that at least the Insider extension is not
working anymore, anywhere.
If that's the case, shall we go ahead and have Insider removed from
Production everywhere?
Best regards, M.
I’m quite happy go with a SWAT deployment and I agree that it’s probably a
lot safer.
My only concern with that is that between the 2 tasks it would be 5/6
patches in the SWAT window.
It would also be my first mediawiki core + extensions SWAT so are the
patches safe to +2 during / just before SWAT or Should I get that done
before?
Thanks,
Samuel
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 16:25, Tyler Cipriani <tcipriani(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Hi Samuel
>
> On 20-05-18 09:57:54, RhinosF1 - wrote:
> >On https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/core/+/596424/, it was
> >raised correctly that namespaceDupes.php would need to be ran.
> >
> >https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/core/+/596424/ and
> >https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/bug:%20T251287 can mostly run with the
> >train (expect the mediawiki config patch) but all require namespaceDupes
> to
> >be ran and on https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/bug:%20T251287 could do
> >with being deployed as close together as possible to avoid
> >inconsistently translated namespaces.
> >
> >Would as mentioned SWAT be better for all 5 patches or should we let what
> >can ride with the train and deploy the one config patch shortly after and
> >run for both wikis in that window? or could we ask the train runners to do
> >that?
>
> What you're describing sounds like it would be a good candidate for SWAT
> deployment. My reasoning is that (1) it is atypical to run maintenance
> scripts as part of the train and (2) there are no guarantees that a
> train won't rollback.
>
> That is, backporting to a version that is stable ensures that we don't
> end up having rolled forward to all wikis, run the maintenance script,
> and then having to rollback due to an unrelated problem. Additionally,
> the log triage that follows a train window may mean that we can't
> guarantee a timely deploy of the configuration change following train.
>
> To me, this feels safer/faster/easier as a SWAT deployment; even though
> this might make for a particularly long SWAT window.
>
> Thanks!
> -- Tyler
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--
Thanks,
Samuel