Talk:VisualEditor/status

"demo"
Hi. About this edit: "Instance" feels jargony and unspecific, and "deployment" is confusing because "deployment" usually refers to the action of deploying software, not the particular instance. I don't really see the problem with the word "demo"; it's the word usually used on software websites for the "instance" of "working code" that lets users test the software's functionality. The Oxford Dictionary gives a similar definition: "demo: a demonstration of the capabilities of something, typically computer software or a musical group". This doesn't seem to conflict with being "working code". Maybe I'm bikeshedding, but "demo" seems unambiguous and specific. guillom 12:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a very awkward word (at least, in British English) for this concept. The OED lists as a noun the process-of-demonstration - there is a strong implication of being shown something by someone, not being allowed to use it yourself. Our deployment isn't a guided walk through what it might be, and what we provide isn't a process, it's a static noun. Would "Early version" work for you? Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sounds like a good compromise :) guillom 17:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. :-) Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

MW 1.22wmf19
In, I tried to correct a number of mistakes in the text. I had noted most of these at en-wiki, as requested by Jdforrester, but no action was taken to correct the status page or to indicate where I was wrong (one dev checked some of my conclusions and posted Bugzilla requests for them, which was a good thing to do and indicates that at least some of my concerns or remarks were correct).

My changes were reverted as “trolling”, but despite repeated requests no one could or would argue what was wrong with them (apart from the claim that “I” wasn’t allowed to edit that page for unclear reasons).

So I’ld like to propose my changes here instead.
 * "There was no time for basic testing, but we'll let the different Wikipedia language versions do that for us." This is evidenced by the fact that WMF is only now trying to hire a QA tester for VisualEditor, by the fact that basic testing would have found these problems and errors, and by the Engineering goals: "In the next year, we'll build out a whole new function in engineering: community-driven software testing."
 * "You can now drag-and-drop some more elements in the same buggy fashion that this was implemented for files - references, reference lists, templates and other "nodes" should all be moveable with the mouse according to the original release text, but in practice only some are, and some aren't." The same bugs that apply to file moving (difficult positioning, positioning in the middle of words, no scrolling beyond the current screen while dragging, …) also apply to template (…) moving. Furthermore, some of the things promised in the status text are not available or not in all circumstances: I have provided evidence that reflists can’t be moved, and that many templates can’t be moved either.
 * "Blanking the contents of a heading, pre-formatted block or other formatting block was said to have been improved to delete the block rather than leaving it empty, which is consistent with how OpenOffice and Google Docs behave (bug 50254). But of course, this as well isn't true: blanking the contents of a heading now creates an empty header, but without the nowiki elements. It doesn't delete the block at all." See test at.

There may be more errors in the release text, I haven’t tested all of it and some things were not clear to me as to what was supposed to be solved; but of the above three, which ones are completely or partially incorrect, and why? And why can’t the correct bits not be included, before this release reaches most other wikis? Fram (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey ,
 * Sorry for not seeing your comment until now. Feel free to use  to get my attention if you want me to respond more quickly in future. This is why I didn’t see your comments on the English Wikipedia's technical sub-page of their Village Pump (until your editing here brought them to my attention).
 * I'm sorry that you feel that we ignored your feedback - it's helpful, though I would agree with others that there are more productive and less confrontational ways that you could have expressed it.
 * You are right that this page (like all of the /status pages on this wiki) is not very well sign-posted as an archive of announcements. This means that the page shouldn't be retrospectively edited, as it is disrespectful to people who received the original announcement to re-write history. I know that this is standard practice on other wikis too, but it isn't labelled clearly enough here, because most editors of the wiki are 'regulars' who have learnt these local rules over time.
 * We welcome you continuing to point out any issues you encounter in using VisualEditor (or any of the rest of Wikimedia's deployed code). I understand that you have been very helpful in pointing out several issues and suggesting improvements. Raising issues is most usefully done through Bugzilla, or at the appropriate feedback page on the language Wikipedia you are using. Editing across several wikis makes it very hard to follow what you are trying to highlight, and slowed me from being able to address your concerns until this morning - my apologies.
 * In terms of feedback you do provide, it is particularly unhelpful to throw around false accusations like "There was no time for basic testing", when what you mean (and would be more constructive) would be a comment along the lines of "I've tried it out and it doesn't work for me". Of course, we do test quite extensively, though are always looking to improve on this. I'd be happy to talk in more detail about our testing strategy for VisualEditor (and I discussed it in our office hours yesterday).
 * In case you are unaware, we are holding another office hour at 00:00 2 October 2013 (in a few hours' time). Would be happy to see you there if you're available.
 * Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I had written an eloquent reply, and then my computer crashed... Second attempt!
 * You had, when you posted the status at en-wiki, specifically requested feedback at en:WP:VPT and en:WP:VEF, and I posted feedback at both. I also pinged you a bit later. These were the more productive and less confrontational ways that I tried, but I didn't get any response on those (Qgil of the WMF checked my errors and filed Bugzillas for them, which was good, but no one commented on what to do with an incorrect status report for a release that still had to be deployed to most wiki-versions). I probably should have tried something else then than what I did here, but no one give any indication that they were taking this seriously or where and how I should raise the issues (which were quite urgent considering the Thursday rollout, not something to bury in Bugzilla). So I did it myself, with the known results (including a hard to justify block yesterday and an impossible to justify topic ban and threat with indef block today, for the latter two of which no explanation has been provided).
 * While "I tried it out and it doesn't work" (the "for me" part is superfluous) is obviously correct, it is hardly sufficient. You (plural, WMF) may have tested this, but then you have done this so badly that the difference between testing and not testing has become negligible. The problems I found were predictable (known bugs for files are now also bugs for templates and the like) and/or very, very easy to find. The toughest part for me was finding a page here with a reflist; once I found one, it was soon clear that the reflist was not movable. On the other hand, the first page I tested here had a template that couldn't be moved, and I found some others on other pages soon afterwards. The "header" problem can be tested on any page, it never works. These were basic elements of the status announcement, not some minor, obscure aspect no one would think of. If you (WMF) communicate that X is solved, and a simple test shows that X isn't solved, and the same applies to Y and Z, then the conclusion "no one has tested this" may be incorrect but is obvious. If you did test this quite extensively, then you did it in the completely wrong manner, and need to seriously reconsider your approach here.
 * How to proceed now. It is clear that you don't want to change the announcement. On the other hand, you will now deploy this to many wikis, with a list of known problems but an announcement that states that these things work. This will create a lot of extra work, with people testing things, noting them at their local feedback pages, and then perhaps noting that these things were already in Bugzilla before they had received the software update. This will not make people happy, at a time when VE is already controversial and the WMF not very popular (in this regard). So perhaps some interim extra announcement, an errata list, an "updated status report" can be produced, indicating what was wrong with the previous status update, which parts are still correct, and why this cockup has happened. (The other possibility, to delay the update until these issues are solved, is probably too controversial).
 * Not communicating to the other wikis in some way that your previous status report had multiple rather fundamental errors seems to me to be unaceptable though.
 * As for the open hours, thanks for the invitation, but I don't like IRC, I prefer to have my discussions on-wiki, and it is too late in the evening for me anyway.
 * (Note that most of the time, when I am stating "you", I am talking about the plural you of the WMF, the devs, Mediawiki people; not you in person.) Fram (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * [ec]
 * ''You had, when you posted the status at en-wiki, specifically requested feedback […] I also pinged you a bit later.
 * Yes, and I didn't get around to the ping until after you had edited here; sorry about that.
 * ''While "I tried it out and it doesn't work" (the "for me" part is superfluous)
 * Sorry, this is not actually true, sadly. VisualEditor is a hugely complex system of hundreds of parts, many of which depend on browser behaviours which are (politely) irregular in how they act. Something working in one way in Firefox 22 isn't a reliable indicator that it works that way in Firefox 23, let alone working in Chrome/Opera/Safari. For some aspects, particularly related to keyboard interaction (which is of course critical to VisualEditor), the brokenness of the browser landscape stretches to flavours and versions of operating systems and input methods. I would dearly love for the behaviour of your browser to be identical to that of everyone else's (amongst other things, that would let us un-blacklist Internet Explorer and allow ~ 15% of our users to edit), but sadly the manufacturers of browsers aren't very good at agreeing standards in these areas, let alone sticking to them.
 * ''You (plural, WMF) may have tested this, but then you have done this so badly that the difference between testing and not testing has become negligible. […] If you (WMF) communicate that X is solved, and a simple test shows that X isn't solved, and the same applies to Y and Z, then the conclusion "no one has tested this" may be incorrect but is obvious. If you did test this quite extensively, then you did it in the completely wrong manner, and need to seriously reconsider your approach here.
 * Yes, this is sadly true to an extent. When the team (including me) build and test things before release, we use a number of testing strategies (again, see my comments during Monday's IRC office hours for more detail). However, the "chrome"-y parts of the system - those that affect users most and which are also in some way the most complex - are much less well tested than they should be. I have asked our (relatively) new QA team to work with us to improve this for VisualEditor as a priority, part of which has been the expansion of the team by looking to hire a QA person dedicated to the team, as you noted.
 * ''How to proceed now. It is clear that you don't want to change the announcement. On the other hand, you will now deploy this to many wikis, with a list of known problems but an announcement that states that these things work.
 * Well, sure, but you weren't editing an announcement. You were editing (as the top of the page states) an archive of an announcement that had gone out four days earlier.
 * So perhaps some interim extra announcement, an errata list, an "updated status report" can be produced, indicating what was wrong with the previous status update, which parts are still correct, and why this cockup has happened. […] Not'' communicating to the other wikis in some way that your previous status report had multiple rather fundamental errors seems to me to be unaceptable though.
 * That's a possibility, though because of the drama here and otherwhere I've still not had the necessary two-three hours to go through your comments and work out what you were expecting to happen, what actually happens (and with what browsers), and how my comments as to what was working were either (a) wrong or (b) mis-understood (or a combination of the two, of course).
 * Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We are close to the rollout to the other wikis now. Any updates on if and how the corrections to the status report will be posted? Fram (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, what was described as being solved with the headers was bug 50100, but the link pointed to the actually solved (more or less) bug, 50254, which only accounts for a small sub-problem of 5010, and isn't really solved anyway. Fram (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry for the confusion caused by my use of "deletes" rather than "clears" (I was trying to simplify the wording, as this gets translated into dozens of languages, and clearly I simplified too far). However, as you can see, I very clearly linked to bug and not, which I agree is not fixed, and my poor wording misled you into thinking I was claiming was fixed. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News/2013/40
So, yesterday, is posted to enwiki (and other locatins presumably), containing the same errors (e.g. You can now move [...] list of references"). What's the point of providing feedback if it isn't acted upon, and where does one have to go to get these things changed? Fram (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive
This page should not be edited because it is an archive / official statement. Fine, but where does it get prepared? Where can we give input before it becomes official and set in stone for eternity? Fram (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

E.g. MediaWiki 1.22/wmf20, which will be posted to all wikis in a few hourst time, is still empty. How is anyone supposed to give feedback to this if it isn't available before being communicated, and can't be changed after being communicated? Fram (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki 1.22/wmf20 is created using a script by whomever is deploying, which is usually Reedy. You can just look at the commit history from which it is generated from. For the VE extension, you'd look at . MediaWiki core would be . Legoktm (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And the update to the "status" page is just created by Jdforrester or someone from the WMF, without discussion or possibility of changes? Fram (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. For clarity, the request for feedback on wikitech-ambassadors (and the English Wikipedia's Village Pump) is not asking "please note errors in this announcement", it's asking for feedback on the subject (i.e., is the team focussing on the things that matter to you?). This is the first time (to my knowledge) that the status update has been a source of confusion or doubt. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)