On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Faidon Liambotis <fai...@wikimedia.org>wrote:
> My understanding of the process was that we would collect a broad set of > arguments/ideas/proposals and people would be later assigned to the task > of evaluating them and proposing a viable solution and a migration path > (or not, and propose that we stay with Gerrit). > Hi Faidon, Yes, we're seeking a broad range of proposals. However, "proposals" is the key word. That means looking the requirements, reading the website and matching against those requirements, and stitching together something that at least looks good on paper. I'm not expecting anyone to set up a prototype, but I am asking that, given how long we've been talking about this, that we narrow down our options a bit to the things that we know are worth looking at rather than (still, a year later) having the "have you looked at this?" discussion again. As far as "people being assigned to the the task of evaluating them", I think you may be overestimating the number of people we have floating around to do this work. "People" is basically Chad, who is pretty burnt out on working on this, and is exasperated with this process, but without drafting someone outside my group (like you?) :), I don't have many options. Having Chad do this means taking one of our most experienced MediaWiki developers, and having him not work on MediaWiki, but instead, do more evaluation of code review tools. Before doing that to Chad, I'm asking people who believe passionately that we need to move off Gerrit to actually tell us what they'd like to move to in a structured, constructive way. I don't think that's too much to ask. Rob _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
