On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il&gt; wrote: If we remove "VisualEditor" from these projects https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/query/o8TQwZrbhX4L/#R then they become totally confusing: Language, MediaWiki Mobile, Performance... Or am I missing something? -- Quim Gil Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Amir E. Aharoni &lt;amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il&gt; wrote: I think "phab" is officially in use since the interwiki was implemented: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interwiki_map#WMFLabs.27_Phabricator Helder

Le 24/11/2014 10:46, Amir E. Aharoni a écrit : Hello, When tasks ends up in multiple projects (when multiple parties are involved), it is useful to use one of the project as a prefix to more or less identify which project is responsible for fixing it (much like assigning a bug to a group). Another way would be for each team to have their own bug and use sub tasks / blocker referencing the other teams tasks. An example, given I need to setup a new server for continuous integration. In Bugzilla I would probably have created a bug under 'continuous integration', cc some ops and prefix it with [OPS]: Component: continuous integration Subject: [OPS] set up new Jenkins server Assignee: Myself CC: some ops The prefix is handy there to figure out instantly who is working on it. Note how it is assigned to myself whereas it is for ops, I am the assignee because I am responsible for the completion of this bug. With Phabricator I can have a task that reference a task in the operations team: T1: Project: continuous integration Subject: Track ops installing new Jenkins server Assignee: Myself Blocked by: T2 T2: Project: operations Subject: Install new Jenkins server Assignee: One ops Blocked by: T1 In this case the prefix are not needed, the responsibilities are clearly established. Splitting tasks seems better than using prefix for the above use case. -- Antoine "hashar" Musso

Amir E. Aharoni wrote: In Bugzilla, bug summaries were important. IRC and e-mail notifications only included the bug summary, not the associated product or component, so you could receive messages that were not very helpful. For example, "Long lines in preformatted paragraphs should not wrap" is actually specific to VisualEditor, so it would more properly be "Long lines in preformatted paragraphs should not wrap in VisualEditor". The prefixes have always been a bit silly. But I don't know why we can't be as specific as possible in the one-line summary. Compare "Adding external links should trigger CAPTCHA" and "Adding external links using Flow should trigger CAPTCHA". The latter is clearly preferable. Looking at Phabricator's e-mail notifications, it seems to have the same issue as Bugzilla: the e-mails don't include any information about the project(s) associated with a task. Given this, I'm not sure why we would edit task titles to include less information. It feels like shooting ourselves in the foot. MZMcBride