Hi everyone,
I probably mistitled my last message in the "How to avoid a post-branch code slush" thread. There seems to be a misconception that the code slush is over.
Please go back and read the thread. The status quo is *there is still a code slush*. What this means: 1. No big architectural changes without discussion. Not merely "hey, I sent a message, and no one responded", but as in: you send a message, and two or three people say "yeah, you're right, that needs to happen, make it so" without serious dissent 2. No big omnibus whitespace cleanups. These are of debatable use any time, but now they make backporting a big pain-in-the-butt, and we'll need to do a lot of backporting to 1.19. 3. Have a reviewer lined up ready to ok your revision *before you commit it*. If you can't get a tentative commitment from a reviewer, don't commit it.
We have a couple of different options in this interim period between now and when we start using Git: a. we let people commit as was previously normal into trunk, but we only migrate the code that's been formally reviewed. b. we insist on pre-commit review from now until we go live on Git.
So far, there hasn't been a lot of discussion on either option. Brion and Roan both pointed out problems with option "a", while no one has raised a serious objection to option "b".
Rob
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
This is one of the reasons I've been hoping we'd move to a more pre-commit review model. Especially for big refactorings and cleanups that have limited immediate value, we tend to get a lot of breakages a not a lot of interest in fully reviewing them (eg actually checking all the code paths to make sure they really work).
Here's the thinking that lead to where we are: the cutover to Git is the point at which we want to fully move to precommit. It seems like an enormous pain-in-the-butt to move to full precommit with our current toolset (SVN + CodeReview tool).
However, we're much closer than we've ever been to having Git, and it may be worth dealing with some short-term pain.
To a certain degree, I'd actually consider it desirable to have a permanent 'slush' to the extent that destabilizing work should *always* be talked out a bit and tested before it lands on trunk/head/master.
Yup, agree 100%.
Let's all just pretend this has always been the status quo starting right now. I think we've already established that there used to be more liberal reversion, and that when that went away, so too went our ability to stay on top of the review queue.
If we're not ready to go fully git the instant we branch 1.19,
Given that the branch just happened, and we're not ready yet, that's the case. Chad can give you more of an update, but my understanding is:
- A (hopefully) final test migration of core is slated for this week.
Chad believes he's got all of the blocking problems sorted out.
- Extensions migration isn't going so smoothly. The same tools that
work splendidly with core seem to crash with the very small subset of extensions that he's tried it out with. Could be a minor problem that's easy to fix, or could be gawd awful. TBD
- We'd like a two-week window of warning/testing/playing around
before making the cutover.
All told, the current plan is beginning of March for core, middle of March for extensions. More details here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git/Conversion
...and in the email that I hear Chad is writing :-)
we may wish to consider applying more formal review to things proposed to go into trunk on SVN. This may be simpler than attempting to synchronize SVN and git via post-SVN-pre-git reviews...
I'd be perfectly fine with either outcome (more formal pre-commit review, or picking our SVN->Git cutover point based on what's reviewed).
Rob
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
We have a couple of different options in this interim period between now and when we start using Git: a. we let people commit as was previously normal into trunk, but we only migrate the code that's been formally reviewed. b. we insist on pre-commit review from now until we go live on Git.
So far, there hasn't been a lot of discussion on either option. Brion and Roan both pointed out problems with option "a", while no one has raised a serious objection to option "b".
How are we technically going to do "a"?
--vvv
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Victor Vasiliev vasilvv@gmail.com wrote:
How are we technically going to do "a"?
Sorry, I meant "b".
--vvv
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org