Rjd0060 wrote: >On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:44 AM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: >> And, even though it should go without saying, Bugzilla will need to >>remain >> online in a read-only format indefinitely post-migration. > >Why would this be necessary, assming everything is properly imported to >Phab? > >Will *every* detail of a BZ ticket be moved? Comments, attachments, >history, etc? If so, I wouldn't see a need to keep it laying around. Is >there one?
I thought of quips and saved searches off-hand. There are almost certainly other pieces of Bugzilla that may not be migrated, but still may be of interest to users. We've had Bugzilla since 2004, it's a decade old, so leaving it up for a while in a read-only state shouldn't be an issue. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/versus_Bugzilla looks promising. Andre Klapper wrote: >In order to tackle the bigger issues with code review migration they >need to receive sufficient attention and discussion about the best way >forward. >High level examples: Do we have sufficient expertise in Wikimedia? Who >has this expertise? Do these persons have the time and interest to work >on these issues? What has higher priority compared to other tasks these >persons already have on their lists for the next months? > > [...] > >Hope that answers some of your concerns. Quim Gil wrote: >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 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. > >[...] > >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. Thanks for the detailed replies. I'll take a look at some of these links. Andre: Your questions are interesting, but I was mostly wondering whether Phabricator as a replacement for Gerrit had been decided. We've not yet reached the point of no return for Phabricator and code review is a pretty important process, of course. Quim: you seem to be saying that the idea is to plan for and allocate resources toward demoing Phabricator as a replacement for Gerrit, as I now understand it. Thanks for the clarification. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
