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@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.