On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 4:44 PM, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm confused by this e-mail. I don't understand why you're seemingly > switching to a focus on code review Sorry for the confusion, sometimes it is tricky to find the balance between brevity and clarity. As the description of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T18 says, The Code Review migration to Phabricator is quite orthogonal to the RT and Bugzilla migrations, and we should start planning for it now. We need to request resources for the current quarter now, and in order to do this properly we need to have an initial plan that gives us an idea of the skills/roles needed and for how long. > when everyone had decided to > indefinitely put that off. The last time this was discussed, there were > real concerns that Phabricator couldn't handle code review in the same way > that Gerrit does and so Gerrit would continue to be used. What has changed? > When we discussed code review during the RfC there was indeed a lot of discussion about how to integrate Phabricator's code review process with the Wikimedia code review requirements. However, the only formal decision was to schedule tentatively a "Proof of concept of code review in Phabricator adapted to Wikimedia needs" for Oct-Dec 20014, and nothing has changed in that respect. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2014-15_Goals#Engineering_Community I also don't understand the focus on code review when the Bugzilla > migration is still not done. Although there is some overlap of people, most of the active contributors in the code review discussion are not particularly involved in the RT and Bugzilla migration work. > You mention a final sprint, but I'm unclear what this means. It means exactly this: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/bugzilla-preview/ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/bugzilla-migration/ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/rt-migration/ Chase, Mukunda, Andre, and myself are working almost full time in these three subprojects. I'm taking some extra time to push the Code Review plan to identify with a higher level of detail what we need, and what Phabricator is not offering today. You previously wrote: > > > NEXT STEPS > > > > > > > > We will set up a separate Phabricator instance containing a sample of > > Bugzilla reports imported automatically, for your delight and criticism. > > After this instance is announced, we will leave at least one week for > > community feedback before deciding the next steps. > > > > > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator#Migration_timeline > > As I understand it, this has not happened yet. Looking at the wiki page, > it seems this is tentatively scheduled for the week of October 31. > The announcement of the Bugzilla migration preview is imminent, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T552 > I also don't think one to four days of Bugzilla downtime is acceptable > Any ideas to reduce the time? :) We will go as fast as the Bugzilla and Phabricator APIs allow us to migrate all the content we want to migrate from A to B. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
