Hi, On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Dan Andreescu <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's my understanding that the current Phabricator instance is temporary. > Indeed, it includes mostly jokes and throw-away testing tasks, comments, > boards, etc.
Actually, we're using the test instance to project-manage the Phabricator RFC itself, by tracking missing features compared to our existing tools, and planning for the possible migration if the RFC is successful. So it's not just jokes and throw-away content :) That said, that project is probably the only one that we can get away with hosting there, because if we end up keeping the status quo, we won't have a need for that project any more and we can safely delete the test instance. > Could we stand up an instance to which we would potentially > migrate to? We would have to reserve task ids 1-100000 to allow us to port > from Bugzilla, but do we have any other blockers? I understand where you're coming from, but I would caution against this course of action. "Testing" shiny new tools with real projects is one of the reasons why we now have so many tools. If a Phabricator instance is created for "real" use, and the RFC is unsuccessful, then we'll have yet another tool on our hands (obligatory xkcd reference: https://xkcd.com/927/ ). At the moment, it's difficult to see if there are other blockers than just reserving IDs. I agree that having a production instance now (and migrating later) would be easier for the RFC, but in order to have resources allocated to plan and work on the migration, there needs to be an explicit show of interest in the RFC. I realize it's a bit of a snake-eating-its-own-tail situation; the throw-away test instance if the best option we've come up with for now. -- Guillaume Paumier _______________________________________________ teampractices mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
