Hi, please check this draft plan for the next steps in the Phabricator RfC
at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Phabricator/Plan
This aims to be a starting point for the next round of discussion to be
held online and at the Wikimedia hackathon in Zürich this weekend. Edits,
questions, and feedback welcome.
On Friday, May 2, 2014, C. Scott Ananian <cananian(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
[cscott] James_F: I'm arguing for a middle path. devote *some*
resources, implement *some* interoperability, decide at *some later*
point when we have a more functional instance.
This is basically the same as "Decide now on a plan identifying the the
blockers, commit resources to fix them, proceed with the plan unless we get
stuck with a blocker." We have identified blockers, but we are not seeing
any that could not be solved with some work (from the very active upstream
and/or ourselves).
We need a RfC approval to go confidently from
http://fab.wmflabs.org to a
production-like Wikimedia Phabricator. If that happens, the Platform
Engineering team will commit resources to plan, migrate, and maintain the
Phabricator instance that will deprecate five tools or more.
The Labs instance has been setup and is being fine-tuned basically on a
volunteering basis, which tells a lot about Phabricator's simplicity of
administration and maintenance. As it is now, it is good enough to run
simple projects with a short term deadline e.g.
Chemical Markup for Wikimedia Commons
http://fab.wmflabs.org/project/view/26/ (a GSoC project -- hint, hint)
Analytics-EEVS
http://fab.wmflabs.org/project/board/15/
Please play with it and provide feedback. Other contributors critic with
Phabricator are doing this, and it is being extremely helpful for everybody.
--
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil