Talk:Backport windows

Rendered with Parsoid
From Wikitech
Latest comment: 3 years ago by C. Scott Ananian in topic Demilitarize and rebrand?

I think we might be able to remove this restriction once `scap swat` is in production:

 If you're cherry-picking a patch to both release branches, that counts as 2.

--20after4 (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

No flipping feature switches?

I was surprpised by this entry in "Allowed types of patches": "Simple config changes (that don't turn on any new features)".

For some reason I had assumed that SWAT was the right way to deploy new configuration to enable features incrementally, and roll back the enable switch. If this is the case, then maybe we should add another allowed patch type "Config change to enable or disable features"?

Awight (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I believe the idea is that new features should have their own deployment window, to avoid potential confusion over whether the new feature or some other patch caused any problems that showed up. Anomie (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, Anomie is basically right on the thinking that made this rule/policy. But, maybe it's time to rethink this limitation/policy? Obviously new extensions should have their own enablement window as that can be complicated and cause issues. But what's the line of "new feature" is a valid question to ask. I'll mull, but also feel free to reply with your thoughts as well. Greg Grossmeier (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Alright, updated. Take a look @Awight:. Greg Grossmeier (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Greg Grossmeier: Thanks for the clarifications! The language about new extensions might still be off, though—now it implies that new extensions should be deployed with the weekly train, but here we're saying that new extensions need to be deployed in a specially scheduled window. Awight (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Demilitarize and rebrand?

Friends, I'd like to gently problematize our historical acronym. "SWAT" is clearly a backronym, from paramilitary policing's "special weapons and tactics". It's fine that we inherited this name, the hardcore ring to it is an understandable attraction, and so on... but perhaps it's time to change? Also, "team" is technically incorrect since the people with deployment rights are a diffuse group of people not working for any one organization, and no such team exists or holds meetings.

My first thought is a quick substitution which fixes both the connotations and denotations: "Swan" for "setting wikis ablaze network". Swans are fierce, so we don't lose anything on that front. But they're also beautiful and have zero hypermasculinized baggage. "swan deployment" sounds awesome as well as appropriately mysterious.

Is there any appetite for this change?

I'm also ready to not put so much "prod in production" (referring to the image now)--we can change our wiki page mascot to a darn rainbow swan. Awight (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I, too, have issues with the name. And I admit I was probably the one who approved and/or made the name change to it. SWAN could work but it's not readily understandable (for all the issues that SWAT does have, it seems understandable).
How about go back to the old "Lightning Deploy"? Or maybe hyper direct "Backport and config change deploys"? :P
Honestly, I don't want the last option, because I want to leave the focus of these windows open for change/iteration as we move towards more continuous deployments. eg: one thought for the future is some variation of "everything is a SWAT(sic)". Greg Grossmeier (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
+1 on renaming. I'd additionally like to move away from "setting wikis ablaze" in favor of language that indicates safely deploying/safely iterating. Thcipriani (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'd favour some language reflecting the contrast with train deploys (smaller, faster, more individual); passenger deploys, perhaps? Jforrester (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Trolley deploys? Brennen Bearnes (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Dare I say, I approve of where this is headed. Awight (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Mammoth Vein Coal Fig 8
Four days later, I still really like "trolley deploys". How do we move forward with building consensus to change the name (or not)? Awight (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Let's not pick a word that is distinctly different in American English from Indian/British/etc. English, though. Jforrester (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Or "TRAM deploys" if a good backronym can be coined? --DannyS712 (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Train Reconciliation with Absolute Meaning.... I tried :/ Greg Grossmeier (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Trivial Responsive Augmentations and Modifications, perhaps? Jforrester (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Tech Refresh At Wikimedia. (Late, but just in case useful. Short is good!) Quiddity (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
OK, I have an extreme amount of desire to change this asap. "Backport window" is simple and direct. I wish "trolley" would have worked but such is life. I can work on an announcement email this week to send out about it and why we're changing it. Greg Grossmeier (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Greg Grossmeier: Rename for the calendar. Jforrester (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Can someone with Phab admin rights also rename phab:badges/view/5/, please? Majavah (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Majavah: Yes Done. Jforrester (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Backport_windows/Deployers will also need updating (and many others no doubt). Esanders (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Esanders: Yes Done Greg Grossmeier (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Coming to this late (apologies): The Parsing team usually uses these windows for config changes. After seeing the name change I had to read carefully to make sure this was still permitted in the renamed window. Perhaps we can foreground the "config change" aspect high up on the page, since the new name is focused on backports? I'll probably Be Bold (tm) and make some changes myself, but I figured I might as well discuss my reasoning here first, and give folks a chance to wave me off. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply