Re: Reviewboard timing (was Re: Sunsetting of Infrastructure and the Phabricator migration)

[Ben Cooksley]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Luigi Toscano
 wrote:
> On Friday 18 of March 2016 19:46:03 Ben Cooksley wrote:
>> In terms of Reviewboard, there are no plans to import it's contents
>> into Phabricator, as the level of effort required is too high. Once we
>> are migrated to Phabricator for reviews, i'm proposing that everyone
>> has 4 weeks to finish any final reviews up within Reviewboard before
>> it is set to read only by disabling login for everyone. Reviews still
>> open at that point would be discarded.
>
> (starting a subthread on kde-core-devel as advised)
>
> I think this timing is too short. I agree with closing down Reviewboard, of
> course, but I would propose something a bit more complicated (it seems that
> reviewboard permissions does not allow to easily set it):
> - close down new submissions (physically remove the pages? Comment out the
> code in reviewboard)
> - leave open the existing reviews for 6 months and add periodic reminders to
> them.

6 months seems a bit excessive. Reviews shouldn't be sticking around
for too long - and if the patch is still needed nothing stops someone
from picking it up and posting it on Phabricator to continue with it.

Any specific reason for such a long wind down?

>
> Ciao
> --
> Luigi

Regards,
Ben

Reviewboard timing (was Re: Sunsetting of Infrastructure and the Phabricator migration)

[Luigi Toscano]

On Friday 18 of March 2016 19:46:03 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> In terms of Reviewboard, there are no plans to import it's contents
> into Phabricator, as the level of effort required is too high. Once we
> are migrated to Phabricator for reviews, i'm proposing that everyone
> has 4 weeks to finish any final reviews up within Reviewboard before
> it is set to read only by disabling login for everyone. Reviews still
> open at that point would be discarded.

(starting a subthread on kde-core-devel as advised)

I think this timing is too short. I agree with closing down Reviewboard, of 
course, but I would propose something a bit more complicated (it seems that 
reviewboard permissions does not allow to easily set it):
- close down new submissions (physically remove the pages? Comment out the 
code in reviewboard)
- leave open the existing reviews for 6 months and add periodic reminders to 
them.

Ciao
-- 
Luigi

Re: Reviewboard timing (was Re: Sunsetting of Infrastructure and the Phabricator migration)

[Albert Astals Cid]

El divendres, 18 de març de 2016, a les 12:12:45 CET, Luigi Toscano va 
escriure:
> On Friday 18 of March 2016 19:46:03 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> > In terms of Reviewboard, there are no plans to import it's contents
> > into Phabricator, as the level of effort required is too high. Once we
> > are migrated to Phabricator for reviews, i'm proposing that everyone
> > has 4 weeks to finish any final reviews up within Reviewboard before
> > it is set to read only by disabling login for everyone. Reviews still
> > open at that point would be discarded.
> 
> (starting a subthread on kde-core-devel as advised)
> 
> I think this timing is too short. I agree with closing down Reviewboard, of
> course, but I would propose something a bit more complicated (it seems that
> reviewboard permissions does not allow to easily set it):
> - close down new submissions (physically remove the pages? Comment out the
> code in reviewboard)
> - leave open the existing reviews for 6 months and add periodic reminders to
> them.

Given the awful speed i have having a look at reviewboard i would also 
appreciate if we had a somehow longer close period for existing reviews.

Cheers,
  Albert

> 
> Ciao

Re: Sunsetting of Infrastructure and the Phabricator migration

[Ben Cooksley]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Thomas Friedrichsmeier
 wrote:
> Hi!

Hi Thomas,

>
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:46:03 +1300
> Ben Cooksley  wrote:
>> We will be creating
>> a mechanism which will allow repositories following certain naming
>> conventions to be easily created by developers (although this will
>> have to be done through the web interface).
>
> And in another mail:
>
>> That naming convention will effectively replace the existing
>> scratch/clones concept, and will also serve as a replacement to
>> playground.
>
> Will this affect the naming and/or push/pull URLs of _existing_ scratch
> and playground repositories?

The URLs of existing scratch and clone repositories will change, yes -
Phabricator has a completely flat structure so the slashes will have
to go at the very least.
Playground repositories shouldn't be affected at this time.

>
> Regards
> Thomas

Cheers,
Ben

Re: Reviewboard timing (was Re: Sunsetting of Infrastructure and the Phabricator migration)

[Ben Cooksley]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Luigi Toscano
 wrote:
> Ben Cooksley ha scritto:
>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Luigi Toscano
>>  wrote:
>>> On Friday 18 of March 2016 19:46:03 Ben Cooksley wrote:
 In terms of Reviewboard, there are no plans to import it's contents
 into Phabricator, as the level of effort required is too high. Once we
 are migrated to Phabricator for reviews, i'm proposing that everyone
 has 4 weeks to finish any final reviews up within Reviewboard before
 it is set to read only by disabling login for everyone. Reviews still
 open at that point would be discarded.
>>>
>>> (starting a subthread on kde-core-devel as advised)
>>>
>>> I think this timing is too short. I agree with closing down Reviewboard, of
>>> course, but I would propose something a bit more complicated (it seems that
>>> reviewboard permissions does not allow to easily set it):
>>> - close down new submissions (physically remove the pages? Comment out the
>>> code in reviewboard)
>>> - leave open the existing reviews for 6 months and add periodic reminders to
>>> them.
>>
>> 6 months seems a bit excessive. Reviews shouldn't be sticking around
>> for too long - and if the patch is still needed nothing stops someone
>> from picking it up and posting it on Phabricator to continue with it.
>>
>> Any specific reason for such a long wind down?
>
> My experience: reviews shouldn't be sticking but reality and expectations do
> not match sometime, and I fear it will be a chunk of lost code.

Nothing will be lost - Reviewboard will remain in read only mode, with
a clear marker that any still uncommitted patches which need reviving
should be copied over to Phabricator.
If need be, we can also put a general notice on each still open review
in the weeks leading up to it going read only...

>
> Ciao
> --
> Luigi

Cheers,
Ben

Re: Reviewboard timing (was Re: Sunsetting of Infrastructure and the Phabricator migration)

[Luigi Toscano]

Ben Cooksley ha scritto:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Luigi Toscano
>  wrote:
>> On Friday 18 of March 2016 19:46:03 Ben Cooksley wrote:
>>> In terms of Reviewboard, there are no plans to import it's contents
>>> into Phabricator, as the level of effort required is too high. Once we
>>> are migrated to Phabricator for reviews, i'm proposing that everyone
>>> has 4 weeks to finish any final reviews up within Reviewboard before
>>> it is set to read only by disabling login for everyone. Reviews still
>>> open at that point would be discarded.
>>
>> (starting a subthread on kde-core-devel as advised)
>>
>> I think this timing is too short. I agree with closing down Reviewboard, of
>> course, but I would propose something a bit more complicated (it seems that
>> reviewboard permissions does not allow to easily set it):
>> - close down new submissions (physically remove the pages? Comment out the
>> code in reviewboard)
>> - leave open the existing reviews for 6 months and add periodic reminders to
>> them.
> 
> 6 months seems a bit excessive. Reviews shouldn't be sticking around
> for too long - and if the patch is still needed nothing stops someone
> from picking it up and posting it on Phabricator to continue with it.
> 
> Any specific reason for such a long wind down?

My experience: reviews shouldn't be sticking but reality and expectations do
not match sometime, and I fear it will be a chunk of lost code.

Ciao
-- 
Luigi

Re: Sunsetting of Infrastructure and the Phabricator migration

[Thomas Friedrichsmeier]

Hi!

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:46:03 +1300
Ben Cooksley  wrote:
> We will be creating
> a mechanism which will allow repositories following certain naming
> conventions to be easily created by developers (although this will
> have to be done through the web interface).

And in another mail:

> That naming convention will effectively replace the existing
> scratch/clones concept, and will also serve as a replacement to
> playground.

Will this affect the naming and/or push/pull URLs of _existing_ scratch
and playground repositories?

Regards
Thomas


pgpGyc8JPu0Sc.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature