Hi folks,
To help accelerate code review, we (WMF) have recently made efforts to expand the +2 merge right on Git/Gerrit, consistent with the idea that +2 is an expression of trust and confidence in someone's judgment rather than an indicator of universal technical competence.
For example, you might have +2 on core, but specialize in front-end code, or documentation fixes, or test changes. That means you would be expected to only merge changes relevant to those areas, and we trust you to exercise good judgment to do so.
Our intent is therefore to grant +2 more broadly than we have in the past, but to also establish clear parameters under which we would revoke it.
So we've:
- expanded +2 to all full-time WMF engineers by adding them to a 'wmf' group which has +2 rights on the following repos: apps, glam, integration, mediawiki, qa, search, translatewiki, webplatform.org
- been more open in handing out +2 to MediaWiki core. Sumana has been actively nominating trusted volunteers to ensure that they get merge rights. Five volunteers have gained maintainership rights in the past week, and we're encouraging you to apply: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git/Gerrit_project_ownership
- posted a draft policy for owners of the +2 permission here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/%2B2
This last bit is the critical part -- as we expand +2, these are the terms under which reviewers would be expected to operate. Please leave comments on the talk page if anything strikes you as onerous or unreasonable, or missing.
Hopefully this will reduce friction introduced with the Git/Gerrit permissions model and review-related blockers.
All best, Erik
Rather than expanding +2 I'm a little more concerned about allowing more people to create repositories.
Currently it can take a half week waiting for a new repo just so you can contribute a new extension, and there's typically no notification. We need to make getting multiple new extensions into version control somewhat close to how easy it was for a committer to do it back in svn.
Am 23.10.2012 01:21, schrieb Daniel Friesen:
Rather than expanding +2 I'm a little more concerned about allowing more people to create repositories.
Currently it can take a half week waiting for a new repo just so you can contribute a new extension, and there's typically no notification. We need to make getting multiple new extensions into version control somewhat close to how easy it was for a committer to do it back in svn.
that's why people set up their own github extension repos.
Thomas Gries wrote:
Am 23.10.2012 01:21, schrieb Daniel Friesen:
Rather than expanding +2 I'm a little more concerned about allowing more people to create repositories.
Currently it can take a half week waiting for a new repo just so you can contribute a new extension, and there's typically no notification. We need to make getting multiple new extensions into version control somewhat close to how easy it was for a committer to do it back in svn.
that's why people set up their own github extension repos.
Heh, quite.
Is there a relevant bug about this? I guess you'd want a general bug about slowness to create new requested repos (that's the issue, right?), maybe with some data as supporting evidence of the slowness. I believe the current workflow is "request made on mediawiki.org; fulfilled within a few days, usually by ^demon", so it should be fairly easy to graph this, if you're interested in seeing this resolved. The workflow probably just needs a bit of optimization?
Allowing users to create their own repos is an interesting idea, but I imagine it's been discussed elsewhere. If anyone has a bug link, that'd be great.
MZMcBride
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 20:11 -0400, MZMcBride wrote:
Am 23.10.2012 01:21, schrieb Daniel Friesen:
Currently it can take a half week waiting for a new repo
Is there a relevant bug about this? I guess you'd want a general bug about slowness to create new requested repos (that's the issue, right?), maybe with some data as supporting evidence of the slowness.
If it's a technical problem (can be fixed by a code change): A bug report in bugzilla.wikimedia.org is very welcome.
If it's a social problem (people are too busy etc.): Not fixable via a bug report as you will never be able to clearly define when the problem got "fixed". I recommend discussing on mailing lists / IRC / wikis instead.
andre
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Allowing users to create their own repos is an interesting idea, but I imagine it's been discussed elsewhere. If anyone has a bug link, that'd be great.
Not sure about a bug, but my understanding from previous wikitech-l threads is that the primary obstacle was the Gerrit does not (or did not at the time) allow actually deleting repos, only 'archiving' them, and that the rights for creating repos are/were bundled with other administrative rights that we didn't want to hand out widely.
Chad, that still the case?
Steven
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Allowing users to create their own repos is an interesting idea, but I imagine it's been discussed elsewhere. If anyone has a bug link, that'd be great.
Not sure about a bug, but my understanding from previous wikitech-l threads is that the primary obstacle was the Gerrit does not (or did not at the time) allow actually deleting repos, only 'archiving' them, and that the rights for creating repos are/were bundled with other administrative rights that we didn't want to hand out widely.
Chad, that still the case?
That was part of it. With 2.5, we'll be able to actually delete repos, so the "can't get rid of mistakes" argument goes away.
They are decoupled from admin rights, but the setup process isn't always straightforward (new extensions are, though). At least having a real queue with notifications & such would streamline the process.
-Chad
Agreed on what Daniel said. I'd much prefer to keep my extensions on Gerrit, but it becomes slightly frustrating when you have to wait two weeks for the repository to be created. *--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo@gmail.com
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Daniel Friesen daniel@nadir-seen-fire.comwrote:
Rather than expanding +2 I'm a little more concerned about allowing more people to create repositories.
Currently it can take a half week waiting for a new repo just so you can contribute a new extension, and there's typically no notification. We need to make getting multiple new extensions into version control somewhat close to how easy it was for a committer to do it back in svn.
-- ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:01:03 -0700, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi folks,
To help accelerate code review, we (WMF) have recently made efforts to expand the +2 merge right on Git/Gerrit, consistent with the idea that +2 is an expression of trust and confidence in someone's judgment rather than an indicator of universal technical competence.
For example, you might have +2 on core, but specialize in front-end code, or documentation fixes, or test changes. That means you would be expected to only merge changes relevant to those areas, and we trust you to exercise good judgment to do so.
Our intent is therefore to grant +2 more broadly than we have in the past, but to also establish clear parameters under which we would revoke it.
So we've:
- expanded +2 to all full-time WMF engineers by adding them to a 'wmf'
group which has +2 rights on the following repos: apps, glam, integration, mediawiki, qa, search, translatewiki, webplatform.org
- been more open in handing out +2 to MediaWiki core. Sumana has been
actively nominating trusted volunteers to ensure that they get merge rights. Five volunteers have gained maintainership rights in the past week, and we're encouraging you to apply: https://www.mediawiki.org/**wiki/Git/Gerrit_project_**ownershiphttps://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git/Gerrit_project_ownership
- posted a draft policy for owners of the +2 permission here:
https://www.mediawiki.org/**wiki/%2B2https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/%2B2
This last bit is the critical part -- as we expand +2, these are the terms under which reviewers would be expected to operate. Please leave comments on the talk page if anything strikes you as onerous or unreasonable, or missing.
Hopefully this will reduce friction introduced with the Git/Gerrit permissions model and review-related blockers.
All best, Erik
______________________________**_________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikitech-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
My understanding is that creating new repositories becomes WAY easier with Gerrit 2.5, which is one of many reasons the upgrade to 2.5 is one of Chad's priorities. (Also GitBlit support, automatic GitHub repo creation, etc.) We know creating new repos is pretty sub-optimal right now and are working to fix that. Let's take implementation details to the other thread.
However, back to the main thread: it is going to be GREAT for our whole community that we're expanding maintainership. Congratulations to Brian Wolff, Derk-Jan Hartman, Brad Jorsch, Victor Vasiliev, and Robin Pepermans, who now have the ability to +2 code into MediaWiki core; we're grateful for their expertise in JS/CSS, media handling, the API, our parser, language engineering, and more. They join Platonides and Alexandre Emsenhuber as volunteers who can review and merge changes into the codebase that will then be deployed onto WMF sites and into the tarball. I think that's pretty cool.
You can apply at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git/Gerrit_project_ownership - you just need one approval and no vetoes from the current maintainers to get in. If you're not ready yet, we'll tell you what you need to do to get there.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Sumana Harihareswara sumanah@wikimedia.org wrote:
My understanding is that creating new repositories becomes WAY easier with Gerrit 2.5, which is one of many reasons the upgrade to 2.5 is one of Chad's priorities. (Also GitBlit support, automatic GitHub repo creation, etc.) We know creating new repos is pretty sub-optimal right now and are working to fix that. Let's take implementation details to the other thread.
No, there's no real improvements there. However, I'm all for streamlining the process as much as humanly possible as Max already mentioned.
-Chad
On Monday, October 22, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
Agreed on what Daniel said. I'd much prefer to keep my extensions on Gerrit, but it becomes slightly frustrating when you have to wait two weeks for the repository to be created.
FWIW I happened to request a repository on Saturday night and it was ready for me this morning (both times PST). Looking at the history of the requests page, it looks like quick turnarounds are the norm. I'd also like repository creation rights to be expanded, but I don't think being hyperbolic with criticism helps move things along.
-- Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org
On Monday, October 22, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Ori Livneh wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
Agreed on what Daniel said. I'd much prefer to keep my extensions on Gerrit, but it becomes slightly frustrating when you have to wait two weeks for the repository to be created.
FWIW I happened to request a repository on Saturday night and it was ready for me this morning (both times PST). Looking at the history of the requests page, it looks like quick turnarounds are the norm. I'd also like repository creation rights to be expanded, but I don't think being hyperbolic with criticism helps move things along.
Tyler, I read your e-mail as implying that two-week waits are the norm. It now occurs to me that you may have been referring to a specific case. If so, I misread -- disregard my reply.
-- Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org
Sorry about that. Two weeks is indeed *not* the norm. Most repositories (from what I can tell) are created pretty quickly. However, if we're encouraging extension developers to stick to Gerrit, the occasional edge case might put a bad taste in somebody's mouth (as for me, I'm a patient man ;) ). *--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo@gmail.com
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Ori Livneh wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
Agreed on what Daniel said. I'd much prefer to keep my extensions on Gerrit, but it becomes slightly frustrating when you have to wait two
weeks
for the repository to be created.
FWIW I happened to request a repository on Saturday night and it was
ready for me this morning (both times PST). Looking at the history of the requests page, it looks like quick turnarounds are the norm. I'd also like repository creation rights to be expanded, but I don't think being hyperbolic with criticism helps move things along. Tyler, I read your e-mail as implying that two-week waits are the norm. It now occurs to me that you may have been referring to a specific case. If so, I misread -- disregard my reply.
-- Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:46:33 -0700, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
Agreed on what Daniel said. I'd much prefer to keep my extensions on Gerrit, but it becomes slightly frustrating when you have to wait two weeks for the repository to be created.
FWIW I happened to request a repository on Saturday night and it was ready for me this morning (both times PST). Looking at the history of the requests page, it looks like quick turnarounds are the norm. I'd also like repository creation rights to be expanded, but I don't think being hyperbolic with criticism helps move things along.
-- Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org
I made a request at 7h on the 15th, it was finished at 15h on the 19th. I didn't know it was ready till 0h on the 23rd. (rough UTC)
2 weeks is an exaggeration for actual fulfillment time. But it can take days. And the drive for extensions can fade within the first day. It should't take any time at all to get extensions into the wild.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org