On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:44 AM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote: 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? -- Ryan User:Rjd0060

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote: For which a redirect is a much better solution than sending the reader to a dead site and leaving them to figure out it's dead. At least for direct bug references it should be easy to set up a rewrite rule forwarding them to a Phabricator search on the bugzilla ticket number. The main reason for keeping Bugzilla up as long as possible would be, IMO, the personal details which won't be migrated but help people keep track of their bugs of interest, often across many years - votes, saved searches, personal whiteboards and such.

Rjd0060 wrote: 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: Quim Gil wrote: 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

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 4:44 PM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote: Sorry for the confusion, sometimes it is tricky to find the balance between brevity and clarity. 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. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2014-15_Goals#Engineer… I also don't understand the focus on code review when the Bugzilla 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. It means exactly this: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/bugzilla-preview/ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/bugzilla-migration/ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/rt-migration/ Chase, Mukunda, Andre, and myself are working almost full time in these three subprojects. I'm taking some extra time to push the Code Review plan to identify with a higher level of detail what we need, and what Phabricator is not offering today. You previously wrote: The announcement of the Bugzilla migration preview is imminent, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T552 Any ideas to reduce the time? :) We will go as fast as the Bugzilla and Phabricator APIs allow us to migrate all the content we want to migrate from A to B.