Trevor Parscal wrote:
If you feel that releasing frequently is important, as
without shell access and no official power to release anything, this must be
frustrating. Maybe we could instead of bickering about when code should be
released, come up with and support new roles that volunteers can take on
that would accelerate the code review and release process.
Yes, it's incredibly frustrating to the point that volunteer developers have
walked away from MediaWiki code development. This is the "wiki project";
things are supposed to be fast! When someone makes a patch or a commit and
the best we can say is "it might get looked at this year with a fifty
percent confidence interval," that's not okay.
Code deployments to the live sites need to happen more often than quarterly.
There are almost no benefits to such a long gap between deployments and the
detriments are clear.
Is there a problem with saying hell or high water, we won't go more than a
month without a deployment? I realize Wikimedia is a bit different, but
taking a page out of the rest of the business world's book, you set a
deadline and then it just fucking gets met. No excuses, no questions. The
problem seems to be finding anyone to lay down the damn law.