<quote name="Rob Lanphier" date="2016-03-15" time="18:37:18 -0700"> > > > I fully agree with this. It troubles me to openly and strongly disagree > > > with Evan, because I have so much respect for him as an upstream BDFL. > > We > > > have a lot to learn from him when it comes to being a healthy upstream. > > > > > > That said, there is a very unhealthy contrarian attitude toward the > > > competition (GitHub) which he is fostering. If you look at the comment > > > thread on T10584, you'll see some snark about GitHub's model being > > > "broken". Somehow, forcing developers to extra middleware like arc > > > *isn't* broken, > > > but GitHub is broken. Riiiight. > > > > Snark both ways doesn't help. > > > > Nor does brushing off my point (and James' point) by sanctimoniously > dismissing my point as snark.
I didn't mean to brush off either point. I actually think they are legitimate points and we should work through them together, including with Evan, because I think he has useful "not-us" perspective. And, as he started his writeup upstream, is very open to being corrected and having a conversation about it. I believe that having these kinds of discussions with people outside of our community is healthy and productive and will give us a better result in the end. What I want to do is stop sniping each other and start collaboratively finding solutions. > I'll requote one of James' more powerful statements: "People's time is > precious and as reviewers we should all take on the burden of minor > changes, and not give trivial C-1s (or Differential equivalents) that push > the review cycle out for another hour/week/year (depending on the > respondent's availability)." Can you please respond to this? I agree with it generally. And it's something that is possible and has been in discussion on T121751, culminating (mostly) in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T121751#2115258 > > In reading Evan's comments (and not other Phab users), his instincts seem > > > to come from the Facebook new developer mentoring model, and may not be > > > entirely wrong. We need to evaluate whether we want to join him in this > > > battle against the prevailing attitude popularized by GitHub. > > Personally, > > > I think it's a quixotic losing argument, but ultimately, WMF Release > > > Engineering needs to decide where they are going to place their loyalty > > and > > > support. > > > > I don't think it's a matter of "placing one's loyalty" as you term it. > > This isn't a war nor an election. It's a highly complex and nuanced issue > > of social norms and practices that is highly dependent upon > > circumstances and location. So no, I reject this characterization. > > > Declaring this "complex and nuanced" doesn't bring clarity to it, and > doesn't address James' points. It wasn't meant to, I was addressing the language choice, which I believe (and still believe) was sub-par. I still think we should work together on this. I can't simply come up with a new review system and set of norms out of whole cloth. I would like to instead continue the already fruitful conversations we've had to come to a useful and better outcome (better than where we are now and better than any one person or small group of people could do). > WMF Release Engineering is expressing its > strong preference for moving from Gerrit to Differential. You seem to be > abdicating your team's responsibility as diplomats between this user > community and the Phab upstream, and basically begging us to help you make > an argument you are having a difficult time expressing yourself. That's a large statement that I disagree with the facts of. I started this thread with a link to Evan's comments upstream in hopes to start a discussion, which it did (critiques of Evan's points). I generally prefer if people can interact directly, but I can and will, of course, communicate needed information back upstream. I was not going to do so very quickly as I wanted to wait until more people had a chance to reply so that I could synthesize and then comment (instead of copy/pasting each comment individually, for instance). This list tends to have a higher response time than others, so I wanted to respect that. > Are you asking one of us to take over your team's job as spokespeople to > upstream? Not at all. > I'll note that the upstream conversation on Upstream:T10584 > <https://secure.phabricator.com/T10584> includes the following comment from > Mukunda: > > > It took 6 months before I got my first patch accepted in gerrit. This is > not an exageration. > > At my previous job I deployed to production within the first week. > > Greg, do you believe that upstream's tracker is the best place for us to > have that particular conversation? I don't mind having this conversation > publicly, but it seems more appropriate for us to discuss this in a > Wikimedia venue. Which conversation? Mukunda sharing a fact on first patch? I don't see why he couldn't share that information upstream. The task itself was Evan proactively seeing us talk about it on our instance, seeing Mukunda's work to make it a viable option for us (see above), and starting a thread in his instance so that he can think through the issues. I see that as a positive relationship and conversation. > Gergo and Subbu made excellent points on T10584, and I attempted to make my > point more constructively. Can your team represent our development > community and development processes a little more charitably and > constructively? This presupposes that I don't, and I don't agree with that. I, and WMF RelEng as a group, have done much charitable and constructive representation with both upstream and within our community (see also: the Dev Summit session which was an overwhelming success). > > Instead, WMF Release Engineering will continue to work with all parties > > to help think through code-review best practices, along with TPG and > > the Architecture Committee as leaders/supporters. > > > It seems a little presumptuous to expect ArchCom's support. Do you believe > that you deserve it? There was an explicit act of support in the last ArchCom meeting I attended where you offered to shepherd the migration RFC, which I took as a show of support. I do still believe the work that WMF RelEng (and others) have put into this migration deserves that support, yes. Greg -- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D | _______________________________________________ teampractices mailing list teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices