Hello,
I need a little help understanding the deployment policy used on Wikipedia in order to have a better image of the relation between different types of request in bugzilla and the code added to ro.wp following those requests.
I read at http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES?view=ma... that "MediaWiki is now using a "continuous integration" development model with quarterly snapshot releases. The latest development code is always kept "ready to run", and in fact runs our own sites on Wikipedia.".
Indeed, when googling for the blogs of some wikimedia engineers, you can see that at certain times the latest code from trunk is pushed onto the production servers. On the other hand, when activating an extension, the latest stable version is activated.
Is this the way it's really happening? If so, why are there two different policies? Which of those two do you consider best?
Thanks, Strainu
2009/6/5 Strainu strainu10@gmail.com:
Hello,
I need a little help understanding the deployment policy used on Wikipedia in order to have a better image of the relation between different types of request in bugzilla and the code added to ro.wp following those requests.
I read at http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES?view=ma... that "MediaWiki is now using a "continuous integration" development model with quarterly snapshot releases. The latest development code is always kept "ready to run", and in fact runs our own sites on Wikipedia.".
Indeed, when googling for the blogs of some wikimedia engineers, you can see that at certain times the latest code from trunk is pushed onto the production servers. On the other hand, when activating an extension, the latest stable version is activated.
Is this the way it's really happening? If so, why are there two different policies? Which of those two do you consider best?
There aren't two different policies. When enabling a new extension, the latest version from SVN is installed (provided it has passed review), and extensions are updated together with the core MediaWiki code. Once upon a time, we had sort-of-weekly code updates, but right now Wikipedia is running code dated March 25th.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
2009/6/5 Roan Kattouw roan.kattouw@gmail.com:
There aren't two different policies. When enabling a new extension, the latest version from SVN is installed (provided it has passed review), and extensions are updated together with the core MediaWiki code. Once upon a time, we had sort-of-weekly code updates, but right now Wikipedia is running code dated March 25th.
We're planning to hire a full-time QA engineer in 09-10 to help with code review, bug triaging and deployment - that should help get us back to a more reasonable schedule.
Hoi, I am happy to have an additional problem with the current status quo. Happy because I have a solution as well.
As a consequence of the temporary halt of software going life, the localisations have been waiting to go life for the same amount of time and we at translatewiki.net http://translatewiki.netregularly get the question, when are we going to see the fruit of our labour. We even find people not returning to translatewiki.net because of the gap in time that currently exists.
To alleviate this problem, I have asked Tom Maaswinkel to write an extension, LocalisationUpdate, that will import the messages in a wiki. The process has been discussed with Brion and Siebrand, I have been testing it for some time now and it will definetlt benefit the quality of our localisation and the quantity of our localisation when it is implemented on all the Wikimedia Foundation projects.
I would really love to have this code reviewed as soon as possible and implemented as soon as feasible. Thanks, GerardM
2009/6/6 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org
2009/6/5 Roan Kattouw roan.kattouw@gmail.com:
There aren't two different policies. When enabling a new extension, the latest version from SVN is installed (provided it has passed review), and extensions are updated together with the core MediaWiki code. Once upon a time, we had sort-of-weekly code updates, but right now Wikipedia is running code dated March 25th.
We're planning to hire a full-time QA engineer in 09-10 to help with code review, bug triaging and deployment - that should help get us back to a more reasonable schedule. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.kattouw@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/5 Strainu strainu10@gmail.com:
Hello,
I need a little help understanding the deployment policy used on Wikipedia in order to have a better image of the relation between different types of request in bugzilla and the code added to ro.wp following those requests.
I read at
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES?view=ma...
that "MediaWiki is now using a "continuous integration" development model with quarterly snapshot releases. The latest development code is always kept "ready to run", and in fact runs our own sites on Wikipedia.".
Indeed, when googling for the blogs of some wikimedia engineers, you can see that at certain times the latest code from trunk is pushed onto the production servers. On the other hand, when activating an extension, the latest stable version is activated.
Is this the way it's really happening? If so, why are there two different policies? Which of those two do you consider best?
There aren't two different policies. When enabling a new extension, the latest version from SVN is installed (provided it has passed review), and extensions are updated together with the core MediaWiki code. Once upon a time, we had sort-of-weekly code updates, but right now Wikipedia is running code dated March 25th.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
Since the quoted text refers to a bygone era, it should be removed or amended to reflect current practice. Werdna's Wikimedia sync script < http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_sync_script%3E might be worth mentioning.
Hoi, This script assumes that you have the same software as is running on the Wikimedia servers. The current practice is that all the extensions that are used will be given the same revision number. When you have one other extension, you will not know what the effect is of running this script.
Also it is assumed that the underlying software is the same as well (think LAMP). Every now and then the underlying software is patched or new application are installed to make the software work well. Given that this is not handled by Werdna's software it is a scenario that is not without its dangers.
Consequently, use it with care AND I do not think that this should be a recommended strategy for our average re-users of MediaWiki and its software. Thanks, GerardM
2009/6/6 Benjamin Lees emufarmers@gmail.com
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.kattouw@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/5 Strainu strainu10@gmail.com:
Hello,
I need a little help understanding the deployment policy used on Wikipedia in order to have a better image of the relation between different types of request in bugzilla and the code added to ro.wp following those requests.
I read at
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES?view=ma...
that "MediaWiki is now using a "continuous integration" development model with quarterly snapshot releases. The latest development code is always kept "ready to run", and in fact runs our own sites on Wikipedia.".
Indeed, when googling for the blogs of some wikimedia engineers, you can see that at certain times the latest code from trunk is pushed onto the production servers. On the other hand, when activating an extension, the latest stable version is activated.
Is this the way it's really happening? If so, why are there two different policies? Which of those two do you consider best?
There aren't two different policies. When enabling a new extension, the latest version from SVN is installed (provided it has passed review), and extensions are updated together with the core MediaWiki code. Once upon a time, we had sort-of-weekly code updates, but right now Wikipedia is running code dated March 25th.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
Since the quoted text refers to a bygone era, it should be removed or amended to reflect current practice. Werdna's Wikimedia sync script < http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_sync_script%3E might be worth mentioning. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Consequently, use it with care AND I do not think that this should be a recommended strategy for our average re-users of MediaWiki and its software.
Certainly not for average reusers. Also, blindly running it from cron seems a bit risky.
The current practice is that all the extensions that are used will be given the same revision number. When you have one other extension, you will not know what the effect is of running this script.
It assumes that the mediawiki folder is a checkout from mediawiki svn and will update it to the specified revision. I don't see how it would update to that revision folders of a different svn server.
Hoi, This script assumes that you have the same software as is running on the Wikimedia servers.
Also it is assumed that the underlying software is the same as well (think LAMP).
Which software could be different?
Every now and then the underlying software is patched or new application are installed to make the software work well.
Yes. Live hacks are a much bigger issue IMHO. They aren't even available so reusers can't see what is the really running code (supposed they tried to run trunk but found a patched bug!).
Given that this is not handled by Werdna's software it is a scenario that is not without its dangers.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org