mobrovac added a comment. In https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T114443#1782700, @faidon wrote:
> So either someone else should make it for you (//soon//) or you'll just use > your own thing? No, it doesn't work like that. The entire point of the RFC > meeting was so that we could all agree to what we want out of this and find > acceptable, make our compromises and make a decision about the direction that > we'll go forward to. > > This happened, and we first and foremost widely agreed of this being aimed as > a single product that will "unify the set of partial and divergent > implementations that currently exist". I don't think you've proposed (yet?) a > plan for replacing EventLogging for all of its existing use cases — if you do > so, we can have that conversation based on those merits. Until then, I don't > see why we are even discussing this "node implementation". > > Or in another words: the flip side of what you wrote is "we have a > complicated piece of infrastructure that has been worked on for years, is > battle tested and is actively used for a number of different use cases > already — but if you can make restevent reach feature parity with that system > //soon// then we can consider using that too". Soooo, I think there's a mix of short-term needs and long-term requirements which do not go hand in hand and we seem to be juggling mostly around them. Here's the deal the way I see it. Yes, sure, +1k for: > we first and foremost widely agreed of this being aimed as a single product > that will "unify the set of partial and divergent implementations that > currently exist" That's the long-term plan. As we agreed in the meeting, not everything can be converted //now// or //soon//. What we (=== Services team) have committed on doing this quarter is creating the change propagation system which aims at replacing the (hacky) RestbaseUpdateJobs extension. And that is only a first use case that is to be based on the EventBus MVP outlined in this task. Since the node REST proxy is ready to use, we feel we should use that in the interim so that we can continue work on our goal. To be explicit: I'm not saying we're dismissing the RFC discussions and don't want to collaborate with others. Our ultimate goal is exactly what you described - a unified event bus system for the whole organisation - and only an org-wide consensus will //bring us home//. But we have to make (small-ish) compromises in the short term in order to meet our QG. TASK DETAIL https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T114443 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: Ottomata, mobrovac Cc: Milimetric, RobLa-WMF, brion, intracer, Smalyshev, mark, MZMcBride, Krinkle, EBernhardson, bd808, Joe, dr0ptp4kt, madhuvishy, Nuria, ori, faidon, aaron, GWicke, mobrovac, Eevans, Ottomata, Matanya, Aklapper, JAllemandou, jkroll, Hardikj, Wikidata-bugs, Jdouglas, aude, Deskana, Manybubbles, daniel, Mbch331, Jay8g, Ltrlg, jeremyb, Legoktm _______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
