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@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l