On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Why are we revisiting something from 2007-08 financial planning two years after it happened and 15 months after the final report?
Because there isn't enough data on the mistakes that are being made
today.
15 months ago, there was "oh, the dumps will be fixed real soon now" and "that money which wasn't spent will be spent in 2008-09". But today we
know
"no, 15 months later they still aren't fixed" and "no, that money will
get
rolled into the general budget where it won't even be spent".
Have you not read people's replies to this? All dumps are working except for the full enwiki history. That's certainly a lot better than before, when pretty much every dump was failing. They've got all but one dump for one wiki working, and that's still being worked on too. What more would you ask?
I don't think you've been following the dump situation for the past three years. Maybe there are others on this list who also don't understand the situation. During the last three years or so, all dumps have been produced, albeit intermittently, except the full history en.wikipedia. In order to "get all but one dump for one wiki working", the "solution" was primarily to 1) throw more hardware at the problem and 2) stop even trying to produce the en.wikipedia full history dump.
What more I would ask for is to fix the actual problem. That means redesigning the dump system, which was not designed for such large amounts of data, and needed to be rewritten three years ago (when the WMF plan was to simply throw more hardware at the situation, which they didn't even do). One or more people are apparently working on this. I haven't seen any redesign plans or progress reports though, so I have my doubts, not that one or more people aren't actually working on this, but as to whether or not it's going to get done.
Maybe if we could get a report on the status of the redesign, the plans for the redesign, etc., at least those doubts might be allayed, and this would become an example of a past mistake. But it still would be worth talking about.