You are browsing a read-only backup copy of Wikitech. The live site can be found at wikitech.wikimedia.org

Talk:Schema changes: Difference between revisions

From Wikitech-static
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Anomie
 
imported>Jcrespo
(clarification)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== "All schema changes must be optional for your code"? ==
== Sounds good ==
This proposal makes sense.  I agree with renaming database to WMF-database to better fit the specific purpose given here. [[User:Mattflaschen|mattflaschen]] ([[User talk:Mattflaschen|talk]]) 17:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


Regarding [//wikitech.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schema_changes&diff=98091&oldid=82201 this change], is it no longer the case that we can submit the schema change in one patch and the code change in a followup, and -2 the latter with a comment "Don't merge this until the schema change is made to WMF wikis", rather than contributing to the proliferation of nearly-useless feature flags? The case I'm considering here is the one I've most often encountered: a new feature requires a new index (or an old index that was never deployed) or else the query is very slow, but other than for disabling the feature until the index is deployed a feature flag would be utterly pointless. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]] ([[User talk:Anomie|talk]]) 14:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
== Re: has been fully agreed ==
:That is probably fine, honestly. I'm parroting the Dev Policy page and I feel weird just unilaterally changing that, could you? :) I just don't want more changes to go through that don't take the WMF cluster into account. [[User:Greg Grossmeier|Greg Grossmeier]] ([[User talk:Greg Grossmeier|talk]]) 15:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 
:: Meh, as long as nothing actually changing, it doesn't matter much to me. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]] ([[User talk:Anomie|talk]]) 15:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
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? [[User:Nemo_bis|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 <code>O:-)</code>. 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. [[User:Jcrespo|Jcrespo]] ([[User talk:Jcrespo|talk]]) 18:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:21, 16 December 2015

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)