"On the negative side, for the umpteenth month in a row, volunteer developers seem to be struggling to get timely code review, contributing to fears that now unreviewed code does not block deployment". I suppose one could say that changing to gerrit shifted getting volunteer code reviewed from a wmf problem to a volunteer problem, since in svn world, the foundation needed to review volunteer code to update the site, now there is less of a "push" so to speak. Bawolff (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"critics are far more likely to point to describe Gerrit as an unfortunate fait accompli: the costs of moving, even from imperfect software, have already been cited as a reason for sticking with Gerrit, almost certainly to the dismay of those who wanted Gerrit's shortcomings to block the Git switchover." -- I don't know if it's just me, but I would prefer less editorializing and more pure reporting on such divisive issues, since perceived existing tendencies can affect the opinion of the undecided. --Waldirtalk 15:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The understanding I had was that Jarry is reporting on the 'self-admitted afterthought', not editorializing. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 20:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were a number of things I wanted to convey here: (a) that Gerrit was an afterthought (b) that it was a concern for some at the time that its being an afterthought (i.e. not having a pre-switchover discussion) would later bias the eventual outcome in favour of Gerrit (c) that their concerns have proved to be corrected but (d) regardless, there are now switching costs, and they are a reason for sticking with Gerrit. I don't see anything wrong with my presentation given that -- but if you could suggest an alternative, maybe that would crystallise the point of contention. In any case, we'll no doubt run a full story on the topic further down the line. Regards, - Jarry1250[Deliberationneeded] 21:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply there is anything wrong with the text, and perhaps "editorializing" was the incorrect word to describe what I perceived (I'm not a native English speaker). I think the expression "an unfortunate fait accompli" (which somehow conveys a feeling of collective resignation) was the key element that led me to read that sentence as a little biased towards a view of us staying with Gerrit as a nearly inevitable outcome; furthermore, the whole sentence (and your comment "would later bias the eventual outcome in favour of Gerrit") seems to imply that the developer community is largely tending to the Gerrit side, when I see quite a bit of support for a switch where I've looked (for instance in mw:Git/Gerrit evaluation), in a manner that seems quite balanced towards each side. I do admit that I am not thoroughly involved in developer communications (wikitech-l and IRC seem to be the main discussion venues), so what I see could be an incomplete picture, which led me to feel the text didn't represent the general feeling I've perceived so far regarding this issue. --Waldirtalk 09:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As reported last week, 1.20wmf7 hit enwiki at around 18:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC). But there was no simultaneous post at WP:VPT, exacerbating a flurry of confusion/drama over the (unintended?) override of the Watchlist bolding suppression. Also, mw:MediaWiki 1.20 and mw:MediaWiki 1.20/Roadmap are starting to get out of date and there's no mention there yet of 1.20wmf8 (or 1.21). Has the communications plan been overlooked? — Richardguk (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand next week's poll question. Why would long lines prevent me from reading Wikipedia? I'm imagining some town in rural Australia with only 1 computer and everyone is lined up waiting to read Wikipedia on it. Fortunately, we don't have this problem in San Francisco :) Kaldari (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually research that indicates that excessively long lines are harder to read and strain the eyes.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
