Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 16:19:02 UTC-4, Randell Jesup wrote: > >On 2017-07-14 1:31 AM, Jim Blandy wrote: > >> Many people seem to be asking, essentially: What will happen to old bugs? > >> I'm trying to follow the discussion, and I'm not clear on this myself. > >> > >> For example, "Splinter

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

>On 2017-07-14 1:31 AM, Jim Blandy wrote: >> Many people seem to be asking, essentially: What will happen to old bugs? >> I'm trying to follow the discussion, and I'm not clear on this myself. >> >> For example, "Splinter will be turned off." For commenting and reviewing, >> okay, understood. What

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

>On 7/13/17 9:04 PM, Mark Côté wrote: >> It is also what newer systems >> do today (e.g. GitHub and the full Phabricator suite) > >I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get discussion >on the PR that should have gone in the issue, with the result that people >following the

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

Mark Côté wrote: > It was announced in May > (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.tools/4qroY2Iia9I), > linked to in this forum: > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/qh5scX3Gk2U/xCWe8jrOAQAJ I stand corrected, thanks. I would've thought that'd be put in

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

Hi Joe, I just want to publicly apologize for being sarcastic in my original post to you. I could've found a better voice and the frustration clouded my judgement. I'm sorry. Edmund ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On 2017-07-17 8:46 PM, Edmund Wong wrote: Mike Hoye wrote: Given that we've been talking about this stuff for years now, I think it's very clear that we haven't come to this point by "somebody at the top issuing an edict that they want something modern"; the decision to commit to Phabricator

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > If the bug is only serving as an anchor to track code review, then the > question we should be asking is "do we even need a bug." > In my experience the answer to this is "yes, we need a bug". I very rarely have a

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

Mike Hoye wrote: > > Given that we've been talking about this stuff for years now, I think > it's very clear that we haven't come to this point by "somebody at the > top issuing an edict that they want something modern"; the decision to > commit to Phabricator was ultimately announced on May

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

I filed a central tracker bug for production Phabricator deployment: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1381498. I have filed blockers and dependencies for a variety of related tasks as discussed in these threads. Mark On 2017-07-14 11:33 AM, Milan Sreckovic wrote: Replying in

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On 7/16/17 11:10 PM, Edmund Wong wrote: Joe Hildebrand wrote: I'm responding at the top of the thread here so that I'm not singling out any particular response. We didn't make clear in this process how much work Mark and his team did ahead of the decision to gather feedback from senior

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

> On Jul 15, 2017, at 23:36, Gabriele Svelto wrote: > >> On 14/07/2017 05:39, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get >> discussion on the PR that should have gone in the issue, with the result >> that people following the

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 11:39:38 PM UTC-4, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 7/13/17 9:04 PM, Mark Côté wrote: > > It is also what newer systems > > do today (e.g. GitHub and the full Phabricator suite) > > I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get > discussion on the PR that

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

Joe Hildebrand wrote: > I'm responding at the top of the thread here so that I'm not singling out any > particular response. > > We didn't make clear in this process how much work Mark and his team did > ahead of the decision to gather feedback from senior engineers on both Selena > and my

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On 14/07/2017 05:39, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get > discussion on the PR that should have gone in the issue, with the result > that people following the issue don't see half the relevant discussion. > In particular, it's common to go off

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Jul 14, 2017 6:27 PM, "Mike Hommey" wrote: On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 01:00:51PM -0400, Ben Kelly wrote: > I know feedback was collected, but maybe not from this group. Feedback was collected from a selected set of the people who do the most reviews. I'm one of them. I don't

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 01:00:51PM -0400, Ben Kelly wrote: > Also a random reply. > > I think this kind of effort is more likely to be successful if it gets > input and buy-in from the key stakeholders. In this case that would be the > most frequent reviewers. > > It would be nice to run a

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

Also a random reply. I think this kind of effort is more likely to be successful if it gets input and buy-in from the key stakeholders. In this case that would be the most frequent reviewers. It would be nice to run a bugzilla query to find the top 10 or 20 reviewers. Talk to these folks,

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

Replying in general, to a random message :) I don't have the numbers, but I imagine reviews are happening in the hundreds every day (if we land almost 300 patches.) So, I wouldn't expect the conversation about adding/removing/changing tools involved in reviews to be any less complicated,

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On 2017-07-14 1:31 AM, Jim Blandy wrote: Many people seem to be asking, essentially: What will happen to old bugs? I'm trying to follow the discussion, and I'm not clear on this myself. For example, "Splinter will be turned off." For commenting and reviewing, okay, understood. What about

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

I'm > On 14 Jul 2017, at 11:39, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > >> On 7/13/17 9:04 PM, Mark Côté wrote: >> It is also what newer systems >> do today (e.g. GitHub and the full Phabricator suite) > > I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get discussion on > the

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

lets all try I'm > On 14 Jul 2017, at 13:48, Jim Blandy wrote: > > Yeah, this is kind of the opposite of "No New Rationale". > > https://air.mozilla.org/friday-plenary-rust-and-the-community/ > > >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:49 PM, David Anderson

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On 7/14/17 1:31 AM, Jim Blandy wrote: But keeping all the comments in one thread is a mixed blessing, too Absolutely. I guess what I'm saying is we should try to have some guidelines for when it's appropriate to take the discussion back to the bug instead of continuing it in the review...

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

Yeah, this is kind of the opposite of "No New Rationale". https://air.mozilla.org/friday-plenary-rust-and-the-community/ On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:49 PM, David Anderson wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 1:38:18 PM UTC-7, Joe Hildebrand wrote: > > I'm responding at the

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

Many people seem to be asking, essentially: What will happen to old bugs? I'm trying to follow the discussion, and I'm not clear on this myself. For example, "Splinter will be turned off." For commenting and reviewing, okay, understood. What about viewing patches on old bugs? Yes, Phabricator

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On 7/13/17 9:04 PM, Mark Côté wrote: It is also what newer systems do today (e.g. GitHub and the full Phabricator suite) I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get discussion on the PR that should have gone in the issue, with the result that people following the issue

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Mark Côté wrote: > On 2017-07-13 3:54 PM, Randell Jesup wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Byron Jones wrote: >>> >>> But indeed having also the patches in bugzilla would be good. > > no, it would be

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On 2017-07-13 3:54 PM, Randell Jesup wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Byron Jones wrote: But indeed having also the patches in bugzilla would be good. no, it would be bad for patches to be duplicated into bugzilla. we're moving from bugzilla/mozreview to

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 1:38:18 PM UTC-7, Joe Hildebrand wrote: > I'm responding at the top of the thread here so that I'm not singling out any > particular response. > > We didn't make clear in this process how much work Mark and his team did > ahead of the decision to gather feedback

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

I'm responding at the top of the thread here so that I'm not singling out any particular response. We didn't make clear in this process how much work Mark and his team did ahead of the decision to gather feedback from senior engineers on both Selena and my teams, and how deeply committed the

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

>On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Byron Jones wrote: > >> But indeed having also the patches in bugzilla would be good. >>> >> no, it would be bad for patches to be duplicated into bugzilla. we're >> moving from bugzilla/mozreview to phabricator for code review, duplicating >>

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

>>> To answer the other part of your question, MozReview will be disabled for >>> active use across the board, but it is currently used by a small number of >>> projects. Splinter will be disabled on a per-product basis, as there may be >>> some projects that can't, won't, or shouldn't be

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Byron Jones wrote: > >> Consider that we are talking about "turning off" mozreview now. Will all >> the bugzilla links to those reviews go dead? Or do we have to maintain a >> second service in read-only mode forever? > > the patches will be

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On 7/12/17 11:54 AM, Byron Jones wrote: or uploading patches directly to bugzilla. But still rewriting existing links (including from the mirrored review comment comments, so it's clear which diff the review comments applied to), right? -Boris

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Byron Jones wrote: > Consider that we are talking about "turning off" mozreview now. Will all >> the bugzilla links to those reviews go dead? Or do we have to maintain a >> second service in read-only mode forever? >> > > the patches will be

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Byron Jones wrote: > But indeed having also the patches in bugzilla would be good. >> > no, it would be bad for patches to be duplicated into bugzilla. we're > moving from bugzilla/mozreview to phabricator for code review, duplicating >

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

Milan Sreckovic wrote: One thing that hasn't been explicitly mentioned, and I hope switching to phabricator would fix it (though it does sounds like an orthogonal issue) - the patches that are attached to bugzilla are often not the ones that actually landed, because last minute changes were made

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

Perfect, love it. One thing that hasn't been explicitly mentioned, and I hope switching to phabricator would fix it (though it does sounds like an orthogonal issue) - the patches that are attached to bugzilla are often not the ones that actually landed, because last minute changes were made

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

Consider that we are talking about "turning off" mozreview now. Will all the bugzilla links to those reviews go dead? Or do we have to maintain a second service in read-only mode forever? the patches will be archived in some form. how this looks is yet to be fully fleshed out - ideas

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On 12-Jul-17 11:27, Byron Jones wrote: ... But indeed having also the patches in bugzilla would be good. no, it would be bad for patches to be duplicated into bugzilla. we're moving from bugzilla/mozreview to phabricator for code review, duplicating phabricate reviews back into the old

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

Yeah, I live in the assumption that bugzilla bugs will contain all the review information also in phabricator era. i believe the current plan is to mirror just the outcome of the review to bugzilla (ie. that a review exists, and set the review flag). if comments should be mirrored to bugzilla

Diff-viewing in splinter (was: Phabricator Update, July 2017)

> On Jul 11, 2017, at 22:24, Mike Hommey wrote: > > Splinter is still a nice UI to look at patches already attached to bugs. > Please don't disable it. > > Mike As a note, we currently support viewing GitHub Pull Requests in splinter as if they were patches example:

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On 07/12/2017 04:20 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Byron Jones wrote: instead of disabling splinter for phabricator backed products, we could make it a read-only patch

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Byron Jones wrote: > > instead of disabling splinter for phabricator backed products, we could > make > > it a read-only patch viewer. > > Given the number of bugs that

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Byron Jones wrote: > instead of disabling splinter for phabricator backed products, we could make > it a read-only patch viewer. Given the number of bugs that exist with patches attached, that would be greatly appreciated. I would also assume

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

To answer the other part of your question, MozReview will be disabled for active use across the board, but it is currently used by a small number of projects. Splinter will be disabled on a per-product basis, as there may be some projects that can't, won't, or shouldn't be migrated to

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 09:59:57PM -0400, Mark Côté wrote: > On 2017-07-11 9:51 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Mark Côté wrote: > > > * MozReview and Splinter turned off in early December. > > > > Is this bugzilla-wide? I know that other

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On 2017-07-11 9:51 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Mark Côté wrote: * MozReview and Splinter turned off in early December. Is this bugzilla-wide? I know that other project use splinter still. Will those projects be able to use phabricator for

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Mark Côté wrote: > * MozReview and Splinter turned off in early December. Is this bugzilla-wide? I know that other project use splinter still. Will those projects be able to use phabricator for their projects? For instance, NSS uses a

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

We're currently trying to figure that out. It's unlikely that it will be available for the initial launch of Phabricator, but we hope to have it not too long after. I'll have an update in a couple weeks. Mark On 2017-07-11 7:32 PM, Chris Pearce wrote: What is the status of push-to-review

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

What is the status of push-to-review support? Chris. On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 8:42:06 AM UTC+12, Mark Côté wrote: > Hi all, here's a brief update on the project to deploy and integrate > Phabricator at Mozilla: > > * Development Phabricator instance is up at >

Phabricator Update, July 2017

Hi all, here's a brief update on the project to deploy and integrate Phabricator at Mozilla: * Development Phabricator instance is up at https://mozphab.dev.mozaws.net/, authenticated via bugzilla-dev.allizom.org. * Development, read-only UI for Lando (the new automatic-landing service) has