Hey all,
As people probably(?) know, the WMF has replaced Bugzilla with Phabricator ( https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/) . This is also taking over from a host of other services, including RT. Analytics Engineering has already switched over, as have a lot of teams, but R&D has not - instead, we use Trello ( https://trello.com/b/k5N0ivoM/research-and-data). I think that if we're going to switch over, we should probably do it reasonably soon (the longer we wait, the more things we have to port). This thread is to have the switch-or-not conversation in. I'll start ;p.
I'd like to strongly advocate that we switch to phabricator, for several reasons. Even were Phabricator less-good than Trello, there's an inherent advantage in consolidating systems. It means fewer logins to maintain, and a less-distributed workset. By extension, it means a reduced barrier for interacting with other teams, or volunteers, and vice versa.
But actually, Phab isn't worse than Trello: it's better. For one thing, it's better at letting us work with other teams.
We're dependent on Analytics Engineering (on Phabricator), and work with the VE team (on Phabricator), Fundraising (on Mingle), Mobile (also on Trello)....the list goes on and on. The trello model, in which everything is split out into different boards you may or may not have access to, combined with the distribution of teams across platforms, makes it a constant pain to bring people into conversations and work on problems that are both our problem + AnEng's problem, or our problem + customer's problem. People need to cross the streams or juggle multiple logins.
With Phabricator, it's a lot easier to see what everyone is doing, keep abreast of the general gestalt in movement/WMF work, and chip in on tasks that don't officially belong to your team. And because a lot of teams use it, the responsiveness from customers when we ask questions is a lot better.
Phab also seems to, at least for me, naturally fit my work process better. I think of a research project ("find out how long mobile sessions are") as actually being a series of individual tasks - "find out what a session is", "work out how to measure it", "measure it". Trello doesn't really have support for that kind of heirarchical, dependent, chunked work. It has checklists but they don't allow for any actual data segmentation or detail. Alternately you can write multiple cards and link them together, but this is entirely ad-hoc; there's no structure to it, it's not obvious without reading each card what the relationship is, and you have to do the heavy lifting yourself.
Phabricator is designed for precisely this model, because that's how engineering work tends to break down. It's built-in, fully supported, and extracting the tree is easy.
So those are the reasons I have, off the top of my head. Other reasons? Counter-arguments? Post em here.
So those are the reasons I have, off the top of my head. Other reasons? Counter-arguments? Post em here.
Agreed, Phabricator is a good tool, and great if it creates a single place where we manage our projects.
It's not all great though. Trello has a much more refined notification system and much prettier interface. Mingle has more powerful queries, Asana is more to the point, etc. We've been over these and decided as an organization to move towards Phabricator, I'm certainly not trying to dig up old wounds. I do want to say though: bring those positive experiences when you switch from a system you like. Because Phabricator is open source and the Facebook team that maintains it has been super friendly and helpful to us during our migration. If we criticize it constructively, Phabricator will only get better.
Hi Oliver,
I'd like to give Phabricator a try. I suggest the following steps if we decide to do it:
1. We block a 15-min team time in December during which R&D will play with Phabricator in https://phab-01.wmflabs.org/ If we all feel reasonably comfortable, then, 2. We switch to Phabricator in January, at the beginning of Q3, and we aim to try it for one quarter [1]. If it works, great, if not, 3. We go back to Trello.
Leila
[1] During the quarter, we keep Trello but we don't update it. If we figure out some time during the quarter that we can't work with Phabricator at all, we switch back to Trello and all we need to do is to add Q3's tasks back to it.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@wikimedia.org wrote:
So those are the reasons I have, off the top of my head. Other reasons?
Counter-arguments? Post em here.
Agreed, Phabricator is a good tool, and great if it creates a single place where we manage our projects.
It's not all great though. Trello has a much more refined notification system and much prettier interface. Mingle has more powerful queries, Asana is more to the point, etc. We've been over these and decided as an organization to move towards Phabricator, I'm certainly not trying to dig up old wounds. I do want to say though: bring those positive experiences when you switch from a system you like. Because Phabricator is open source and the Facebook team that maintains it has been super friendly and helpful to us during our migration. If we criticize it constructively, Phabricator will only get better.
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
To be clear - I do not want to move to Fabricator without reviewing our prioritization process.
Shall we make this a Q3 goal since people seem really into it?
On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Oliver,
I'd like to give Phabricator a try. I suggest the following steps if we decide to do it: We block a 15-min team time in December during which R&D will play with Phabricator in https://phab-01.wmflabs.org/ If we all feel reasonably comfortable, then, We switch to Phabricator in January, at the beginning of Q3, and we aim to try it for one quarter [1]. If it works, great, if not, We go back to Trello. Leila
[1] During the quarter, we keep Trello but we don't update it. If we figure out some time during the quarter that we can't work with Phabricator at all, we switch back to Trello and all we need to do is to add Q3's tasks back to it.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@wikimedia.org wrote:
So those are the reasons I have, off the top of my head. Other reasons? Counter-arguments? Post em here.
Agreed, Phabricator is a good tool, and great if it creates a single place where we manage our projects.
It's not all great though. Trello has a much more refined notification system and much prettier interface. Mingle has more powerful queries, Asana is more to the point, etc. We've been over these and decided as an organization to move towards Phabricator, I'm certainly not trying to dig up old wounds. I do want to say though: bring those positive experiences when you switch from a system you like. Because Phabricator is open source and the Facebook team that maintains it has been super friendly and helpful to us during our migration. If we criticize it constructively, Phabricator will only get better.
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Should we talk more about this in our Research staff meeting on Tuesday?
I agree that we need to figure out prioritization process first. Also keeping two systems active could lead to requests going into two places which could affect the workflow of prioritization.
I see the advantages to using Phab, but haste can sometimes, ya know, make waste. So let's talk about this more...
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Toby Negrin tnegrin@wikimedia.org wrote:
To be clear - I do not want to move to Fabricator without reviewing our prioritization process.
Shall we make this a Q3 goal since people seem really into it?
On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Oliver,
I'd like to give Phabricator a try. I suggest the following steps if we decide to do it:
- We block a 15-min team time in December during which R&D will play
with Phabricator in https://phab-01.wmflabs.org/ If we all feel reasonably comfortable, then, 2. We switch to Phabricator in January, at the beginning of Q3, and we aim to try it for one quarter [1]. If it works, great, if not, 3. We go back to Trello.
Leila
[1] During the quarter, we keep Trello but we don't update it. If we figure out some time during the quarter that we can't work with Phabricator at all, we switch back to Trello and all we need to do is to add Q3's tasks back to it.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@wikimedia.org wrote:
So those are the reasons I have, off the top of my head. Other reasons?
Counter-arguments? Post em here.
Agreed, Phabricator is a good tool, and great if it creates a single place where we manage our projects.
It's not all great though. Trello has a much more refined notification system and much prettier interface. Mingle has more powerful queries, Asana is more to the point, etc. We've been over these and decided as an organization to move towards Phabricator, I'm certainly not trying to dig up old wounds. I do want to say though: bring those positive experiences when you switch from a system you like. Because Phabricator is open source and the Facebook team that maintains it has been super friendly and helpful to us during our migration. If we criticize it constructively, Phabricator will only get better.
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Sure -- I need to send out an agenda for consolidated staff tomorrow, but perhaps you and Kevin can share your experiences and talk about the dev process and use of fab?
[Note -- we will have staff tomorrow]
-Toby
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Grace Gellerman ggellerman@wikimedia.org wrote:
Should we talk more about this in our Research staff meeting on Tuesday?
I agree that we need to figure out prioritization process first. Also keeping two systems active could lead to requests going into two places which could affect the workflow of prioritization.
I see the advantages to using Phab, but haste can sometimes, ya know, make waste. So let's talk about this more...
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Toby Negrin tnegrin@wikimedia.org wrote:
To be clear - I do not want to move to Fabricator without reviewing our prioritization process.
Shall we make this a Q3 goal since people seem really into it?
On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Oliver,
I'd like to give Phabricator a try. I suggest the following steps if we decide to do it:
- We block a 15-min team time in December during which R&D will play
with Phabricator in https://phab-01.wmflabs.org/ If we all feel reasonably comfortable, then, 2. We switch to Phabricator in January, at the beginning of Q3, and we aim to try it for one quarter [1]. If it works, great, if not, 3. We go back to Trello.
Leila
[1] During the quarter, we keep Trello but we don't update it. If we figure out some time during the quarter that we can't work with Phabricator at all, we switch back to Trello and all we need to do is to add Q3's tasks back to it.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@wikimedia.org wrote:
So those are the reasons I have, off the top of my head. Other reasons?
Counter-arguments? Post em here.
Agreed, Phabricator is a good tool, and great if it creates a single place where we manage our projects.
It's not all great though. Trello has a much more refined notification system and much prettier interface. Mingle has more powerful queries, Asana is more to the point, etc. We've been over these and decided as an organization to move towards Phabricator, I'm certainly not trying to dig up old wounds. I do want to say though: bring those positive experiences when you switch from a system you like. Because Phabricator is open source and the Facebook team that maintains it has been super friendly and helpful to us during our migration. If we criticize it constructively, Phabricator will only get better.
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
I meant talking about Phab in R&D Staff at 1:30pm Pacific tomorrow, but Kevin and I talk about Phab & prioritization process at the 7:30am Pacific Combined staff meeting.
Agenda items I have for Combined staff are:
Visualization roadmap for EL Product Instrumentation & Visualization goals for Q3:
- https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2014-15_Goals/Q3#Produc... -
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Toby Negrin tnegrin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sure -- I need to send out an agenda for consolidated staff tomorrow, but perhaps you and Kevin can share your experiences and talk about the dev process and use of fab?
[Note -- we will have staff tomorrow]
-Toby
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Grace Gellerman < ggellerman@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Should we talk more about this in our Research staff meeting on Tuesday?
I agree that we need to figure out prioritization process first. Also keeping two systems active could lead to requests going into two places which could affect the workflow of prioritization.
I see the advantages to using Phab, but haste can sometimes, ya know, make waste. So let's talk about this more...
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Toby Negrin tnegrin@wikimedia.org wrote:
To be clear - I do not want to move to Fabricator without reviewing our prioritization process.
Shall we make this a Q3 goal since people seem really into it?
On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Oliver,
I'd like to give Phabricator a try. I suggest the following steps if we decide to do it:
- We block a 15-min team time in December during which R&D will
play with Phabricator in https://phab-01.wmflabs.org/ If we all feel reasonably comfortable, then, 2. We switch to Phabricator in January, at the beginning of Q3, and we aim to try it for one quarter [1]. If it works, great, if not, 3. We go back to Trello.
Leila
[1] During the quarter, we keep Trello but we don't update it. If we figure out some time during the quarter that we can't work with Phabricator at all, we switch back to Trello and all we need to do is to add Q3's tasks back to it.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu@wikimedia.org
wrote:
So those are the reasons I have, off the top of my head. Other reasons?
Counter-arguments? Post em here.
Agreed, Phabricator is a good tool, and great if it creates a single place where we manage our projects.
It's not all great though. Trello has a much more refined notification system and much prettier interface. Mingle has more powerful queries, Asana is more to the point, etc. We've been over these and decided as an organization to move towards Phabricator, I'm certainly not trying to dig up old wounds. I do want to say though: bring those positive experiences when you switch from a system you like. Because Phabricator is open source and the Facebook team that maintains it has been super friendly and helpful to us during our migration. If we criticize it constructively, Phabricator will only get better.
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Grace Gellerman ggellerman@wikimedia.org wrote:
I meant talking about Phab in R&D Staff at 1:30pm Pacific tomorrow,
We haven't held the 1:30pm meeting when we've had combined staff meeting once a month (shouldn't be in the calendar, but it is).
Leila
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Toby Negrin tnegrin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sure -- I need to send out an agenda for consolidated staff tomorrow, but perhaps you and Kevin can share your experiences and talk about the dev process and use of fab?
[Note -- we will have staff tomorrow]
-Toby
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Grace Gellerman < ggellerman@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Should we talk more about this in our Research staff meeting on Tuesday?
I agree that we need to figure out prioritization process first. Also keeping two systems active could lead to requests going into two places which could affect the workflow of prioritization.
I see the advantages to using Phab, but haste can sometimes, ya know, make waste. So let's talk about this more...
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Toby Negrin tnegrin@wikimedia.org wrote:
To be clear - I do not want to move to Fabricator without reviewing our prioritization process.
Shall we make this a Q3 goal since people seem really into it?
On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Oliver,
I'd like to give Phabricator a try. I suggest the following steps if we decide to do it:
- We block a 15-min team time in December during which R&D will
play with Phabricator in https://phab-01.wmflabs.org/ If we all feel reasonably comfortable, then, 2. We switch to Phabricator in January, at the beginning of Q3, and we aim to try it for one quarter [1]. If it works, great, if not, 3. We go back to Trello.
Leila
[1] During the quarter, we keep Trello but we don't update it. If we figure out some time during the quarter that we can't work with Phabricator at all, we switch back to Trello and all we need to do is to add Q3's tasks back to it.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Dan Andreescu < dandreescu@wikimedia.org> wrote:
So those are the reasons I have, off the top of my head. Other
reasons? Counter-arguments? Post em here.
Agreed, Phabricator is a good tool, and great if it creates a single place where we manage our projects.
It's not all great though. Trello has a much more refined notification system and much prettier interface. Mingle has more powerful queries, Asana is more to the point, etc. We've been over these and decided as an organization to move towards Phabricator, I'm certainly not trying to dig up old wounds. I do want to say though: bring those positive experiences when you switch from a system you like. Because Phabricator is open source and the Facebook team that maintains it has been super friendly and helpful to us during our migration. If we criticize it constructively, Phabricator will only get better.
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Oh, the important nuances of the meeting schedule that I still need to learn! Thanks, Leila :)
Guess we'll be talking about Phab & how the Analytics Engineering team uses it at 7:30am.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Grace Gellerman < ggellerman@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I meant talking about Phab in R&D Staff at 1:30pm Pacific tomorrow,
We haven't held the 1:30pm meeting when we've had combined staff meeting once a month (shouldn't be in the calendar, but it is).
Leila
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Toby Negrin tnegrin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sure -- I need to send out an agenda for consolidated staff tomorrow, but perhaps you and Kevin can share your experiences and talk about the dev process and use of fab?
[Note -- we will have staff tomorrow]
-Toby
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Grace Gellerman < ggellerman@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Should we talk more about this in our Research staff meeting on Tuesday?
I agree that we need to figure out prioritization process first. Also keeping two systems active could lead to requests going into two places which could affect the workflow of prioritization.
I see the advantages to using Phab, but haste can sometimes, ya know, make waste. So let's talk about this more...
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Toby Negrin tnegrin@wikimedia.org wrote:
To be clear - I do not want to move to Fabricator without reviewing our prioritization process.
Shall we make this a Q3 goal since people seem really into it?
On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Oliver,
I'd like to give Phabricator a try. I suggest the following steps if we decide to do it:
- We block a 15-min team time in December during which R&D will
play with Phabricator in https://phab-01.wmflabs.org/ If we all feel reasonably comfortable, then, 2. We switch to Phabricator in January, at the beginning of Q3, and we aim to try it for one quarter [1]. If it works, great, if not, 3. We go back to Trello.
Leila
[1] During the quarter, we keep Trello but we don't update it. If we figure out some time during the quarter that we can't work with Phabricator at all, we switch back to Trello and all we need to do is to add Q3's tasks back to it.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Dan Andreescu < dandreescu@wikimedia.org> wrote:
So those are the reasons I have, off the top of my head. Other > reasons? Counter-arguments? Post em here. >
Agreed, Phabricator is a good tool, and great if it creates a single place where we manage our projects.
It's not all great though. Trello has a much more refined notification system and much prettier interface. Mingle has more powerful queries, Asana is more to the point, etc. We've been over these and decided as an organization to move towards Phabricator, I'm certainly not trying to dig up old wounds. I do want to say though: bring those positive experiences when you switch from a system you like. Because Phabricator is open source and the Facebook team that maintains it has been super friendly and helpful to us during our migration. If we criticize it constructively, Phabricator will only get better.
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Also keeping two systems active could lead to requests going into two
places Yes, this will certainly happen.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Grace Gellerman ggellerman@wikimedia.org wrote:
Should we talk more about this in our Research staff meeting on Tuesday?
I agree that we need to figure out prioritization process first. Also keeping two systems active could lead to requests going into two places which could affect the workflow of prioritization.
I see the advantages to using Phab, but haste can sometimes, ya know, make waste. So let's talk about this more...
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Toby Negrin tnegrin@wikimedia.org wrote:
To be clear - I do not want to move to Fabricator without reviewing our prioritization process.
Shall we make this a Q3 goal since people seem really into it?
On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Oliver,
I'd like to give Phabricator a try. I suggest the following steps if we decide to do it:
- We block a 15-min team time in December during which R&D will play
with Phabricator in https://phab-01.wmflabs.org/ If we all feel reasonably comfortable, then, 2. We switch to Phabricator in January, at the beginning of Q3, and we aim to try it for one quarter [1]. If it works, great, if not, 3. We go back to Trello.
Leila
[1] During the quarter, we keep Trello but we don't update it. If we figure out some time during the quarter that we can't work with Phabricator at all, we switch back to Trello and all we need to do is to add Q3's tasks back to it.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@wikimedia.org wrote:
So those are the reasons I have, off the top of my head. Other reasons?
Counter-arguments? Post em here.
Agreed, Phabricator is a good tool, and great if it creates a single place where we manage our projects.
It's not all great though. Trello has a much more refined notification system and much prettier interface. Mingle has more powerful queries, Asana is more to the point, etc. We've been over these and decided as an organization to move towards Phabricator, I'm certainly not trying to dig up old wounds. I do want to say though: bring those positive experiences when you switch from a system you like. Because Phabricator is open source and the Facebook team that maintains it has been super friendly and helpful to us during our migration. If we criticize it constructively, Phabricator will only get better.
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Hi, just a note to say that I have been meeting several teams for Phabricator Q&A and ad hoc demos, and I'm happy to meet with you as well if you wish.
Ref starting using Phabricator keeping Trello but not updating it, this is exactly what the Collaboration team is doing. You might want to have a chat with them to see how it is going for them.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Nuria Ruiz nuria@wikimedia.org wrote:
Also keeping two systems active could lead to requests going into two
places Yes, this will certainly happen.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Grace Gellerman < ggellerman@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Should we talk more about this in our Research staff meeting on Tuesday?
I agree that we need to figure out prioritization process first. Also keeping two systems active could lead to requests going into two places which could affect the workflow of prioritization.
I see the advantages to using Phab, but haste can sometimes, ya know, make waste. So let's talk about this more...
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Toby Negrin tnegrin@wikimedia.org wrote:
To be clear - I do not want to move to Fabricator without reviewing our prioritization process.
Shall we make this a Q3 goal since people seem really into it?
On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Oliver,
I'd like to give Phabricator a try. I suggest the following steps if we decide to do it:
- We block a 15-min team time in December during which R&D will
play with Phabricator in https://phab-01.wmflabs.org/ If we all feel reasonably comfortable, then, 2. We switch to Phabricator in January, at the beginning of Q3, and we aim to try it for one quarter [1]. If it works, great, if not, 3. We go back to Trello.
Leila
[1] During the quarter, we keep Trello but we don't update it. If we figure out some time during the quarter that we can't work with Phabricator at all, we switch back to Trello and all we need to do is to add Q3's tasks back to it.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu@wikimedia.org
wrote:
So those are the reasons I have, off the top of my head. Other reasons?
Counter-arguments? Post em here.
Agreed, Phabricator is a good tool, and great if it creates a single place where we manage our projects.
It's not all great though. Trello has a much more refined notification system and much prettier interface. Mingle has more powerful queries, Asana is more to the point, etc. We've been over these and decided as an organization to move towards Phabricator, I'm certainly not trying to dig up old wounds. I do want to say though: bring those positive experiences when you switch from a system you like. Because Phabricator is open source and the Facebook team that maintains it has been super friendly and helpful to us during our migration. If we criticize it constructively, Phabricator will only get better.
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Toby Negrin tnegrin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Shall we make this a Q3 goal since people seem really into it?
I'm not sure. If it involves figuring out prioritization, it can be a good idea.
On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Oliver,
I'd like to give Phabricator a try. I suggest the following steps if we decide to do it:
- We block a 15-min team time in December during which R&D will play
with Phabricator in https://phab-01.wmflabs.org/ If we all feel reasonably comfortable, then, 2. We switch to Phabricator in January, at the beginning of Q3, and we aim to try it for one quarter [1]. If it works, great, if not, 3. We go back to Trello.
Leila
[1] During the quarter, we keep Trello but we don't update it. If we figure out some time during the quarter that we can't work with Phabricator at all, we switch back to Trello and all we need to do is to add Q3's tasks back to it.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@wikimedia.org wrote:
So those are the reasons I have, off the top of my head. Other reasons?
Counter-arguments? Post em here.
Agreed, Phabricator is a good tool, and great if it creates a single place where we manage our projects.
It's not all great though. Trello has a much more refined notification system and much prettier interface. Mingle has more powerful queries, Asana is more to the point, etc. We've been over these and decided as an organization to move towards Phabricator, I'm certainly not trying to dig up old wounds. I do want to say though: bring those positive experiences when you switch from a system you like. Because Phabricator is open source and the Facebook team that maintains it has been super friendly and helpful to us during our migration. If we criticize it constructively, Phabricator will only get better.
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics