The Flow extension for user-to-user communication is running on ee-flow.wmflabs.org and on the beta cluster, but interested users don't stick around for dialog, and the lack of SUL is a barrier. So the Flow team would like to get early feedback and testing from users on a production wiki. Only one or two Talk:Flow_Portal/Xx pages on mediawiki.org will have Flow enabled.
We will submit the config change and continue conversations with Ops and security.
Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolved | • Springle | T58506 enable Flow extension on test2 and a handful of mediawiki.org pages | |||
| Resolved | • csteipp | T59270 security review of Flow extension | |||
| Resolved | faidon | T59279 Ops review of Flow extension | |||
| Duplicate | None | T60012 If a template is deleted, the text is still shown | |||
| Duplicate | None | T60009 Flow does not create link table entries for transcluded templates or wikilinks | |||
| Resolved | None | T60351 Add --wikidb parameter for sql.php |
Any reason not to enable Flow on the phase 0 wikis (testwiki, test2wiki, mediawikiwiki)?
Change 94106 had a related patch set uploaded by Spage:
Enable Flow discussions on a few test wiki pages
Wikifram wrote:
Any reason to do this when known major bugs like the lack of all history are not solved? I understand the need for more feedback, but the history (contributions, view history, watchlist, recent changes) needs to be correct, complete, and usable before rolling this out any further.
(In reply to comment #3)
Any reason to do this when known major bugs like the lack of all history are
not solved?
Yes there are. We want to test the technical aspect of having a cross-wiki DB on an external cluster, which is hard to simulate on labs instances. Also not having single user-login is a disincentive for a lot of would-be testers (thanks for participating despite that). Terminology is confusing, I wouldn't consider this a roll-out or a release.
Wikifram wrote:
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
Any reason to do this when known major bugs like the lack of all history are
not solved?Yes there are. We want to test the technical aspect of having a cross-wiki DB
on an external cluster, which is hard to simulate on labs instances. Also not
having single user-login is a disincentive for a lot of would-be testers
(thanks for participating despite that). Terminology is confusing, I wouldn't
consider this a roll-out or a release.
Fair enough. I'll complain a lot harder if you would try the same at enwiki (where deployments were planned as well, but seem to be postponed for the moment, I hope).
(In reply to comment #4)
Yes there are. We want to test the technical aspect of having a cross-wiki DB
on an external cluster, which is hard to simulate on labs instances.
Then we need a better testing infrastructure. Please file appropriate bugs where gaps currently exist.
Terminology is confusing, I wouldn't consider this a roll-out or a release.
Terminology is confusing when people intentionally subvert natural meanings of standard words. This bug is most certainly about a (limited) roll-out/release.
We need a DBA to CREATE DATABASE flowdb on extension1 cluster. I filed RT ticket 6486, https://rt.wikimedia.org/SelfService/Display.html?id=6486
This and remaining deployment steps are in https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow_Portal/2013-12_Devployment#Deploy_steps
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/100911
Enable Flow on a few pages
On testwiki, test2wiki, and mw.org, enable Flow for