No negative experiences at all Erik. The only real problems we've run into
are people complaining they weren't aware of editing features that we
pushed to mobile that users were not aware of due to not using mobile. I
reckon this would be less of an issue in desktop.
I would ___ love ___ to see a stable, beta, alpha model on desktop ...
After reading a lot of the Echo feedback today I feel a lot of the
problems, complaints about not hearing about it could have been addressed
by being in a beta mode. It has also made innovation, experimentation,
testing and transparency much easier than it would have been had we just
pushed new features directly to large audiences.
Please help make this happen. I'm happy to talk more in detail with anyone
who wants to implement this.
On 6 May 2013 19:43, "Erik Moeller" <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:20 PM, MZMcBride
<z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
The reason I ask about a distinction is that
there have been a lot of
changes to Wikimedia wikis lately and likely more to come, as the
Wikimedia Foundation has gotten larger and has more dedicated tech
resources. Overall, this is great. But big new features come with big
changes, and these changes sometimes need a bit of breathing room. I've
read a lot of pushback lately against rapid changes (usurping usernames,
getting rid of the new message indicator, etc.). A lot of this seems
mostly outside the scope how often to deploy (and I don't want to shift
the focus of this thread), but it gets confusing (to me, at least) to
make
a distinction between new code/features on
Wikimedia wikis and how often
to branch MediaWiki core/extensions.
A lot of this could potentially be addressed in a consistent manner
across wikis if we applied the alpha->beta->prod (or just beta->prod
for starters) channel model that's used on the Wikimedia mobile sites.
Then features (whether in core or extensions) could be flagged for
alpha or beta readiness, and users would only get them if they've
decided to opt into either of those channels. We could still flip the
switch from beta->prod, but that decision could be decoupled from the
weekly deployment cycle.
This would likely be done for features & changes which have
significant user-facing impact, and where segregation into "on" and
"off" modes is possible (not always the case).
We may want to consider at least putting some such scaffolding for
beta->prod desktop modes into place before shifting to weekly
deployments, although if that holds up this change significantly, I'd
be in favor of making the shift first and then iterating.
Right now we have lots of individual "experimental" prefs, some dark
launch URL parameters (&useNew=1 for the account creation forms etc.),
some changes that are announced widely but then rolled out immediately
(section edit link change), etc. What would be the disadvantage of
having a single "I'd like the latest and greatest changes once they
come in" preference for our users? The main disadvantage I see is that
we'd need to temporarily retain two codepaths for significant
user-facing changes, potentially increasing code complexity a fair
bit, but perhaps reducing post-launch cost in return. And we'd need to
consider more carefully if/when to make the beta/prod switch -- not
necessarily a bad thing. ;-)
Have there been any negative experiences with this model on the mobile
sites?
Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l