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