Talk:Schema changes
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Jcrespo in topic Re: has been fully agreed
Sounds good
This proposal makes sense. I agree with renaming database to WMF-database to better fit the specific purpose given here. mattflaschen (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Re: has been fully agreed
Fully agreed with by whom? Does it mean that #DBA can only be applied when the DBA has approved the change? If so, will the DBA spontaneously vet the #Schema-change tag and rubberstamp the approval with the #DBA and #Blocked-on-schema-change tags? Nemo 14:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fully agreed by mediawiki developers- the equivalent of a +2 "we are ready to deploy" (even if it is blocked by the schema change and it is not actually done. The idea is that DBAs should have veto if the change is considered harmful, but not voice (or not more voice than a regular contributor, I hope it is heard a bit if the suggestions are not unreasonable
O:-). Use #DBA when you want to summon me officially, "just do this". That way, I will not have an excuse to not do it because "the request was clearly marked as such". A schema change can be done without a DBA, it is its application to the WMF servers that requires #DBA intervention. The problem is that right now, there is code deployed that was not rolled in on WMF servers, and viceversa, and this helps me make sure those are not missed. Jcrespo (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)