Rjd0060 wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:44 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
And, even though it should go without saying, Bugzilla will need to remain online in a read-only format indefinitely post-migration.
Why would this be necessary, assming everything is properly imported to Phab?
Will *every* detail of a BZ ticket be moved? Comments, attachments, history, etc? If so, I wouldn't see a need to keep it laying around. Is there one?
I thought of quips and saved searches off-hand. There are almost certainly other pieces of Bugzilla that may not be migrated, but still may be of interest to users. We've had Bugzilla since 2004, it's a decade old, so leaving it up for a while in a read-only state shouldn't be an issue.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/versus_Bugzilla looks promising.
Andre Klapper wrote:
In order to tackle the bigger issues with code review migration they need to receive sufficient attention and discussion about the best way forward. High level examples: Do we have sufficient expertise in Wikimedia? Who has this expertise? Do these persons have the time and interest to work on these issues? What has higher priority compared to other tasks these persons already have on their lists for the next months?
[...]
Hope that answers some of your concerns.
Quim Gil wrote:
As the description of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T18 says, The Code Review migration to Phabricator is quite orthogonal to the RT and Bugzilla migrations, and we should start planning for it now. We need to request resources for the current quarter now, and in order to do this properly we need to have an initial plan that gives us an idea of the skills/roles needed and for how long.
[...]
When we discussed code review during the RfC there was indeed a lot of discussion about how to integrate Phabricator's code review process with the Wikimedia code review requirements. However, the only formal decision was to schedule tentatively a "Proof of concept of code review in Phabricator adapted to Wikimedia needs" for Oct-Dec 20014, and nothing has changed in that respect.
[...]
Although there is some overlap of people, most of the active contributors in the code review discussion are not particularly involved in the RT and Bugzilla migration work.
Thanks for the detailed replies. I'll take a look at some of these links.
Andre: Your questions are interesting, but I was mostly wondering whether Phabricator as a replacement for Gerrit had been decided. We've not yet reached the point of no return for Phabricator and code review is a pretty important process, of course.
Quim: you seem to be saying that the idea is to plan for and allocate resources toward demoing Phabricator as a replacement for Gerrit, as I now understand it. Thanks for the clarification.
MZMcBride