Brion Vibber wrote: >*nods* I think the root problem is that the phabricator task system does >double duty as both an *issue reporting system* for users and a *task >tracker* for devs. > >An issue reporting system should capture all actual problems and all >actual suggestions, and is meant to provide visibility for the devs into >the world of users. A task tracker should capture only things that are, >or are planned to be, worked on and is a work planning tool for the devs. >Secondarily if open, the task tracker provides visibility for the users >into the world of devs. > >This mixup of concerns is endemic in open source software development, >unfortunately, and leads to exactly the sorts of conflicts you mention.
I agree with there being multiple use-cases for Phabricator. I don't agree that it's necessarily a problem. User feedback and bug reports often directly lead to and can directly influence developer work. Mixing the two groups is also a decent means of developing community and rapport between developers and users in a shared space. I also don't agree that a task tracker needs to only capture items to be worked on. Filters, tags, and other user interface tweaks can address the competing use-cases well enough, in my opinion, and as you note. The number of tasks in the issue tracker is somewhat immaterial, just as the English Wikipedia having over five million articles is immaterial, when you're just reading one. Another way to frame your root problem would be volunteer use versus corporate use. In my experience, it's very common for valid bugs and issues to be closed mercilessly in corporate issue trackers, as business priorities shift and staff turns over. We may need to make it clearer and more explicit that the Phabricator installation at phabricator.wikimedia.org is for all members of the Wikimedia movement. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
