I think our MediaZilla configuration could use some reviewing, I'm able to change it myself since Tim made me one of the admins of it recently (yay!), but I'd like to get some input first before I do any major re-arrangements.
First of all I'd like to remove the patch keyword, instead we can use advanced search to search for
* Attachment is patch => is equal to => 1 * Attachment is obsolete => is not equal to => 1
This would of course mean that we would have to start marking patches as obsolete (and explaining why) that don't fit our requirements for inclusion.
Second, I think our products/component setup is a bit of a mess, I already split Images/Uploading into two components (Images and Uploading) but alot more could be done, furthermore they're a bit confusing, for example if there are problems with search on the Wikimedia sites it should not go to MediaWiki => Search but MediaWiki extensions => General/Unknown since Lucene search is an extension. I don't really have any ideas about how to sort the whole thing out though.
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (avarab@gmail.com) [050617 07:25]:
Second, I think our products/component setup is a bit of a mess, I already split Images/Uploading into two components (Images and Uploading) but alot more could be done, furthermore they're a bit confusing, for example if there are problems with search on the Wikimedia sites it should not go to MediaWiki => Search but MediaWiki extensions => General/Unknown since Lucene search is an extension. I don't really have any ideas about how to sort the whole thing out though.
If you put it there, then search bugs will never get reported to the right component - when you do a search, there's no indication that you're using an extension, not MediaWiki core itself. So when you refactor components, be sure to remember how reporters will see things, not just the developers at the other end.
- d.
David Gerard wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (avarab@gmail.com) [050617 07:25]:
if there are problems with search on the Wikimedia sites it should not go to MediaWiki => Search but MediaWiki extensions => General/Unknown since Lucene search is an extension. I don't really have any ideas about how to sort the whole thing out though.
If you put it there, then search bugs will never get reported to the right component
that doesn't really matter, bugs can be moved to the correct component after being filed.
since lucene search is quite large (the mediawiki extension itself is only a small part) i think a new "lucene" compoment would be best...
- d.
kate.
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
First of all I'd like to remove the patch keyword
I was the one that put it in originally. I copied the concept from LiveJournal: someone attaches a patch and sets the 'patch' keyword; other developers search for bugs with the 'patch' but not 'reviewed' keyword; they look at the patches, test them, make sure they work, make sure the code is clean and everything, and add the 'reviewed' keyword. Developers with CVS access look for 'patch'+'reviewed', commit the patches and set the bug to RESOLVED FIXED.
I know I don't have much say in this anymore because I'm not as active as I used to be, but I would nevertheless prefer if the 'patch' keyword would stay (and MediaZillians would set it appropriately). There is no way to search for patches otherwise (see below).
instead we can use advanced search to search for
- Attachment is patch => is equal to => 1
- Attachment is obsolete => is not equal to => 1
This matches bugs that have an obsolete patch as well as a non-obsolete non-patch attachment.
Besides, even if this would work, it is far too complex (UI-wise). Just because it can be done doesn't mean we can't add a quick keyword to make it easier. :)
Also, in rare cases the 'patch' keyword might be set even if there is no patch: maybe the bug is about changing a CSS file or image file or something and the attachment is just the new file.
Thanks for listening, Timwi
On 6/19/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
First of all I'd like to remove the patch keyword
I was the one that put it in originally. I copied the concept from LiveJournal: someone attaches a patch and sets the 'patch' keyword; other developers search for bugs with the 'patch' but not 'reviewed' keyword; they look at the patches, test them, make sure they work, make sure the code is clean and everything, and add the 'reviewed' keyword. Developers with CVS access look for 'patch'+'reviewed', commit the patches and set the bug to RESOLVED FIXED.
I know I don't have much say in this anymore because I'm not as active as I used to be, but I would nevertheless prefer if the 'patch' keyword would stay (and MediaZillians would set it appropriately). There is no way to search for patches otherwise (see below).
Might a flag be better for the review part? from the bugzilla docs:
""" Flags are markers that identify whether a bug or attachment has been granted or denied some status. Flags appear in the UI as a name and a status symbol ("+" for granted, "-" for denied, and "?" for statuses requested by users).
For example, you might define a "review" status for users to request review for their patches. When a patch writer requests review, the string "review?" will appear in the attachment. When a patch reviewer reviews the patch, either the string "review+" or the string "review-" will appear in the patch, depending on whether the patch passed or failed review. """
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org