Thanks @sbassett for opening the task and summarizing the status. WMDE is going to create the CVE soon (we're currently out at the conference, so that's why we've gotten to do it yet).

Snapshot of the etherpad notes from the session

@Lydia_Pintscher it seems there might be a need for some clarification on what should be done here, hinted @Ladsgroup . This task talks about using elastic search as the search backed for the existing special page, whereas T194144#5617328 was considering changing how the special page looks/works. Any comments/thoughts on what's should happen?

@Lydia_Pintscher: Given the (configurable) length of a term is 250 characters, each sentence "Added [en] label: foobar" can be 250+ characters. With several (2 being enough) of such long cases, the resulting summary will not fit the 480 summary limit (as defined in T220696).
What is the desired behavior in such cases? Should the text be cut (at which point) with some "ellipsis" added at the end? Should the general fallback version be used? Any other solution?

Announce to wikitech-l/wikidata-l/wikibase/telegram

Thanks @Mathew.onipe !
For my understanding, have you deployed the bandaid suggested in T233213#5502971 or P9315 ?

WMDE part of offboarding has happened, yes!

Thanks @MoritzMuehlenhoff !

Thanks @sbassett, I was just about to submit LDAP group removal request on WMDE behalf. Sorry for being late with, you shouldn't have relied on Twitter.
I've updated the list of LDAP groups that the account should be removed. I am not familiar with other steps that need to be taken.

Thanks @MarcoAurelio, that's indeed WMDE's intention. We were not sure should we be pointing to the process in the request.

Hi @Gehel @Mathew.onipe: is there anything which we could do at WMDE side that would help with deploying the the provided fix?

@LarsWirzenius given what @matthiasmullie shows above, we believe it has been a hiccup caused by the backport of the breaking change in class constructor (some files got sync earlier than others) and is not a persistent issue.

In T236372#5602610, @hashar wrote:

Which is most probably closely related to T236370

@matthiasmullie That's must've been our backport. Looking into what went wrong.

@matthiasmullie That's must've been our backport. Looking into what went wrong.

In T223792#5598875, @matthiasmullie wrote:

In T223792#5598472, @WMDE-leszek wrote:

@matthiasmullie repeating myself from the IRC

Mmh - didn't see anything - what channel was that in? (or DM?)

@matthiasmullie repeating myself from the IRC

I'd agree with the suggestion above, this topic does not really seem to fit to be a session at the Technical Conference. It seems a good idea to talk about what improvements to creation wikis in WMF universe the Deployment Pipeline could bring in the more informal/unconferencey set up. There will be room provided for such session at the Conference.

@matthias I think there is not need to have a direct chat.
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase/+/544972 and co are being reviewed here at WMDE. As we missed the branch there will be a need for the backport. Let's figure out tomorrow who (WMDE or SD) will take care of it. For now train seems to have some issues departing as I read in wikitech-l. Looks like we should get it through the door this week, in any case.
Which deployment group is Commons again? Sorry I keep forgetting about it.

Final figma mock up to follow.

Per quick discussion it should probably not be a link. Details to be further discussed @Lydia_Pintscher

Superseded by T232814

TODO @Charlie_WMDE: unify the copy to consistently say "items" not "statements"

Apologies for being hard to reach recently @matthiasmullie.
I've submitted a change pair https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/544972 + https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/544973 with a simple proof-of-concept of what would be my idea how to solve this. I am not certain how to verify that all lookup operations are working as expected, so I would appreciate if you could have a look.

BTW, focusing on the non-technical aspects sounds like a really sensible move! Figuring out technical details could be parked to more ad-hoc unconference session, and for the further work in usual places.

@Tgr If you don't mind, I will be happy to try helping with co-leading, e.g. with the facilitating (there will be dedicated people helping with facilitation, BTW).

In T236006#5590851, @ArielGlenn wrote:

@WMDE-leszek Thanks for the answer; is it expected that at some time in the future other things might go into the main namespace for Wikidata, that might have a text or wikitext content model?

@ArielGlenn: for Wikidata data it is not expected to change that Q-item or P-property would go to the namespace with text or wikitext content model. So optimizing the process in this area should be absolutely fine
Note that Commons/MediaInfo are a bit different, as they store structured data (M-entities) in the separate slot the File namespace, which, I believe, is wikitext content model? Not sure if this is relevant for the question here.

I've drafted out the version of https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/534536 which I like better as https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/543872 and https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/543868.
These patches are not fully ready yet (as this was draft, I did pretty sloppy work in the test department), but should be rather easy to get to mergeable state.
I intended to create a nice regression test for the issue visible to users, but failed badly (reason for the delay). I wholeheartedly invite others to give it a try!

If the purpose of having these sessions is to achieve progress on implementing global templates and gadgets

Given the limited room in the session schedule I withdraw this session proposal. I would still be more than happy to talk about feature flag -related stuff at the Conference, but that'd be in some less formal format. @hashar @Jrbranaa @MusikAnimal @Addshore @TheDJ @Tgr - let's talk in Atlanta!

Given the limited room in the session schedule I withdraw this session proposal. I am still very interested in talking about this topic with interested people, but will try to arrange this in more informal way,

Having discussed this briefly with @Addshore we've decided to scope the session down. I've updated the description etc. @Addshore also volunteered to (co-)lead the session (applause)!
@Krinkle: would you be interested in co-leading it with Adam?

@Amire80: having discussed this a bit more with @Bmueller we've decided to finally have one bigger session about on-wiki tooling. In other words this session proposal is being merged into T234661.
As already advertised by Birgit, the session will have a common start and summary with sharing results, but apart from that will be split into two sub-groups, one focusing on templates and modules, and the other devoted to "on wiki scripting" (gadgets).
I would be happy to co-lead the gadget part with you @Amire80 if you're still interested!

FWIW, I've made an arguable suggestion in T234644#5581430 to focus T234644 on using containers for use of non-Wikimedia installations.

Using standard tools, libraries, packages, etc is in my experience often cited as an important ingredient of the developer productivity. I've also heard from numerous WMDE developers that they'd like to be contributing more to non-Wikimedia open source software.

@Tgr: good point again. For me the containerization is better suited and more appealing because it fits better to my interpretation of the "Developer Productivity" theme, whereas better installer/upgrader is crossing into the Product territory, especially if that'd mean creating features that not yet exist in the product.
Also, I'd indeed see this as a continuation to T206059. I believe would be contributing to the developer productivity that certain limitations ("shared hosting support", for example) could be removed/loosened.

Deploying changes/releasing for WMF infrastructure is indeed pretty well covered already in T234641. Local environment setting is also a bit of different can of worms, which I don't think should be mixed here to allow for good discussion and outcomes.
Here's how I would scope down the session:

Thanks @TheDJ. The session in the current shape is indeed pretty broad, I'll try to focus the scope. I dare to call out to all folks who are interested in the session proposal to state here what specific topics they had in mind when they read it. That'd help me with narrowing down the scope here in a way that it is still meaningful for participants.