Hi Diederik, Ori,
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Diederik van Liere <dvanliere(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Hi Ori,
I absolutely 100% agree and we really need to sort this out this week. The
lost productivity is unacceptable.
It is unacceptable to have developers waiting in queue to get create-repo
access
'some day'. We've lost at least a couple of weeks worth of
productivity in Ori's case (for E3) since he's been unable to firstly get
gerrit access and then wait for someone from the release engineering team
to be available to create repos for him.
So far I have heard different arguments why we cannot
hand out 'create-repo
rights' to engineers:
The first reason was that only admin's could do it but that is not longer
true with the special create repo right group
This reason should not hold anymore.
The second reason was that Gerrit's permission
system is either too complex
or engineers don't know how it works. I have full confidence in our
engineers that they can master Gerrit's permission system in less than a
day.
Well - that points to another problem - that of not providing adequate
training on Git/Gerrit even to foundation engineers. I understand that
every migration takes time but without having a published plan to support
and train application developers - this process of learning bit by bit will
take forever. And just think of the tough learning curve our volunteer
contributors may be having to go through.
Now a new argument is unleashed and that is that we
cannot delete
repos. The fact that we cannot delete repos is a non-argument. None of us
are going to create a bazillion repos.
Agreed.
The way we are using Git right now makes it a more centralized system than
Subversion ever was. This means that we are not using it right. So I really
hope that we can close this discussion by handing out the 'create-repo
right' to paid WMF engineers or any paid WMF engineer who requests this.
One of the major objectives stated for migrating to Git was to increase
developer contributions and make is easier every one to contribute. Right
now we seem to be stuck in the world of recreating our old world of svn
into Git. We can do better.
Alolita
Diederik
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Ori Livneh <ori.livneh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Jeremy Baron
<jeremy(a)tuxmachine.com>
wrote:
I mostly agree with what you've said.
Just wanted to point out gerrit projects (aka repos) can never be
destroyed. so if you e.g. typo or rename a project or kill it 5 days
after you started it's still there forever. Only very recently have we
even been able to hide projects from project listings in the UI.
Isn't the same basically true of Wiki articles? I understand the desire
to
keep things tidy, okay. But what would be the big
deal about having ten
or
even a hundred thousand abandoned repositories,
so long as they are
hidden,
and do not clutter the UI? The repositories that
would be candidates for
deletion are the ones that got no further than an initial stab, and those
measure in kilobytes.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l