This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
One question about the transition rather than the policy: what happens to topics that are in flight when it takes effect? The announcement is clear about posts and silent about drafts.
I would put this at better than even and not much better.
The rare case here is the one that costs somebody a week, though, and the common case costs everyone ten seconds. I think the trade is clearly correct.
Post #61 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Something worth flagging about scheduled maintenance: the strongest-sounding claims in this thread are the ones with no source attached, which is the usual pattern and not a coincidence.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
Worth saying publicly: stepping back cleanly and handing over is a service. Documents with an absent maintainer go wrong quietly, which is the worst way for them to go wrong.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
Post #69 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The edit is clearer. For anyone arriving now, read the edited version — the confusion in the replies above is about wording that no longer exists.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
Everything in post #70 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Scheduled maintenance looks different depending on whether you are reading the primary literature or the summaries of it, and the difference is not in our favour.
Building on post #72 rather than restating it.
Scheduled maintenance notice. The site will be read-only for a short window; nothing will be lost and nothing needs doing at your end. If a post fails to submit during it, the draft survives.
That is the honest state of it as of this week.
On scheduled maintenance the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.
Following this. I have the same question and no better information than the first post.
I read post #74 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Careful with the language on scheduled maintenance. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
The edit is clearer. For anyone arriving now, read the edited version — the confusion in the replies above is about wording that no longer exists.
Scheduled maintenance notice. The site will be read-only for a short window; nothing will be lost and nothing needs doing at your end. If a post fails to submit during it, the draft survives.
Answering the question post #79 raises rather than the one it answers.
Two questions I would want answered before drawing anything from the scheduled maintenance data above: how were the cases selected, and what happened to the ones that dropped out.
That is the distinction I keep failing to hold on to. Written down now.
Scheduled maintenance: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.
Post #83 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
What I want from this scheduled maintenance thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
Adding the measurement that post #83 says would settle it.
Adding a small correction to the scheduled maintenance summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
Having read the whole scheduled maintenance thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
Picking up post #87: that is the part I would want checked first.
The rare case here is the one that costs somebody a week, though, and the common case costs everyone ten seconds. I think the trade is clearly correct.