Re: [Wikitech-l] Help! Phabricator and our code review process
On 05/05/2014 01:21 PM, Quim Gil wrote: I created https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Phabricator/versus_Bugzillato consolidate the relevant information for bug reporters. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Phabricator/versus_Bugzilla Phabricator still does not work directly with Git, right? Or has that been implemented since I last checked? If not, what is the planned workaround for Phabricator? arc/arcanist is a wrapper around git (it also uses a Phabricator API called Conduit for a few things) that is used mainly for network operations (e.g. pushing a new patch). git is still used for local operations, and the repo is cloneable without needing arc. We have also talked about having a GitHub->Phabricator bridge, so drive-by contributors could make a GitHub pull request without learning arc right away. The default workflow is to use arcanist to merge the code into Git directly. Does that handle merge conflicts? What is the rebase process? I'm not sure exactly how conflicts are handled. However, what I do know is that you can amend a differential (which is essentially similar to a Gerrit change) with a new diff. A diff, using Phabricator terminology, is one or more commits. So if there's a conflict, you should be able to amend locally then update the differential, similar to Gerrit. I don't know if they have a rebase button on the site similar to Gerrit. Matt Flaschen ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Help! Phabricator and our code review process
On Monday, May 5, 2014, Tyler Romeo wrote: > OK, so I'm sorry if this information is duplicated anywhere, but between > the Project Management Tools review page, the Phabricator RFC, the various > sub-pages of the RFC, and the content on the Phabricator instance itself, > it would take me at least a couple of hours to organize my thoughts. This is perfectly understandable. In just 2-3 weeks there has been an explosion of content in addition to all the content that was compiled before the RfC. There is a high % of signal, not much noise. Things will evetually settle. I created https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Phabricator/versus_Bugzillato consolidate the relevant information for bug reporters. It would be useful to do the same for code contributors and reviewers, but I'm not qualified. Any volunteers? > So I'll just ask directly: > Phabricator still does not work directly with Git, right? Or has that been > implemented since I last checked? If not, what is the planned workaround > for Phabricator? Relevant discussion at Find way to use Differential with plain git (i.e.: without requiring arc) http://fab.wmflabs.org/T207 > The default workflow is to use arcanist to merge the code > into Git directly. Does that handle merge conflicts? What is the rebase > process? > > It's not that I'm opposed to the new system. I'm just confused as to what > the new workflow would actually be. -- Quim Gil Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Help! Phabricator and our code review process
On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 12:18 -0400, Tyler Romeo wrote: > Phabricator still does not work directly with Git, right? This topic is covered in http://fab.wmflabs.org/T207 andre -- Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Help! Phabricator and our code review process
OK, so I'm sorry if this information is duplicated anywhere, but between the Project Management Tools review page, the Phabricator RFC, the various sub-pages of the RFC, and the content on the Phabricator instance itself, it would take me at least a couple of hours to organize my thoughts. So I'll just ask directly: Phabricator still does not work directly with Git, right? Or has that been implemented since I last checked? If not, what is the planned workaround for Phabricator? The default workflow is to use arcanist to merge the code into Git directly. Does that handle merge conflicts? What is the rebase process? It's not that I'm opposed to the new system. I'm just confused as to what the new workflow would actually be. *-- * *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 Major in Computer Science On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Quim Gil wrote: > Hi, please check this draft plan for the next steps in the Phabricator RfC > at > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Phabricator/Plan > > This aims to be a starting point for the next round of discussion to be > held online and at the Wikimedia hackathon in Zürich this weekend. Edits, > questions, and feedback welcome. > > > On Friday, May 2, 2014, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > > > > > [cscott] James_F: I'm arguing for a middle path. devote *some* > > resources, implement *some* interoperability, decide at *some later* > > point when we have a more functional instance. > > > > This is basically the same as "Decide now on a plan identifying the the > blockers, commit resources to fix them, proceed with the plan unless we get > stuck with a blocker." We have identified blockers, but we are not seeing > any that could not be solved with some work (from the very active upstream > and/or ourselves). > > We need a RfC approval to go confidently from http://fab.wmflabs.org to a > production-like Wikimedia Phabricator. If that happens, the Platform > Engineering team will commit resources to plan, migrate, and maintain the > Phabricator instance that will deprecate five tools or more. > > The Labs instance has been setup and is being fine-tuned basically on a > volunteering basis, which tells a lot about Phabricator's simplicity of > administration and maintenance. As it is now, it is good enough to run > simple projects with a short term deadline e.g. > > Chemical Markup for Wikimedia Commons > http://fab.wmflabs.org/project/view/26/ (a GSoC project -- hint, hint) > > Analytics-EEVS > http://fab.wmflabs.org/project/board/15/ > > Please play with it and provide feedback. Other contributors critic with > Phabricator are doing this, and it is being extremely helpful for > everybody. > > > -- > Quim Gil > Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil > ___ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Help! Phabricator and our code review process
Hi, please check this draft plan for the next steps in the Phabricator RfC at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Phabricator/Plan This aims to be a starting point for the next round of discussion to be held online and at the Wikimedia hackathon in Zürich this weekend. Edits, questions, and feedback welcome. On Friday, May 2, 2014, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > > [cscott] James_F: I'm arguing for a middle path. devote *some* > resources, implement *some* interoperability, decide at *some later* > point when we have a more functional instance. > This is basically the same as "Decide now on a plan identifying the the blockers, commit resources to fix them, proceed with the plan unless we get stuck with a blocker." We have identified blockers, but we are not seeing any that could not be solved with some work (from the very active upstream and/or ourselves). We need a RfC approval to go confidently from http://fab.wmflabs.org to a production-like Wikimedia Phabricator. If that happens, the Platform Engineering team will commit resources to plan, migrate, and maintain the Phabricator instance that will deprecate five tools or more. The Labs instance has been setup and is being fine-tuned basically on a volunteering basis, which tells a lot about Phabricator's simplicity of administration and maintenance. As it is now, it is good enough to run simple projects with a short term deadline e.g. Chemical Markup for Wikimedia Commons http://fab.wmflabs.org/project/view/26/ (a GSoC project -- hint, hint) Analytics-EEVS http://fab.wmflabs.org/project/board/15/ Please play with it and provide feedback. Other contributors critic with Phabricator are doing this, and it is being extremely helpful for everybody. -- Quim Gil Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
