I'd also like to mention some similar, third-party solutions that also
address this problem:
Github plugin for Gerrit <https://gerrit.googlesource.com/plugins/github/>:
seems to act as a "translator" between Gerrit/GH while maintaining sync
between the two. Last I checked, we won't use it because we'd have to
upgrade our Gerrit install, and as Greg mentioned, we're not willing to
upgrade Gerrit because we're trying to migrate to Differential.
Third-party site which does mirroring <http://gerrithub.io/>: this website
seems to allow you to have a "gerrit interface" to a GitHub repo (different
approach, AFAICT same end result that you can contribute & review via
gerrit or github). Probably less feasible for us because it's a third party
solution—though I'm not sure whether it's open source.
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Bryan Davis <bd808(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Amir Ladsgroup
<ladsgroup(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hey,
Github has a huge community of developers that collaborating with them
can
be beneficial for us and them but Wikimedia codes
are in gerrit (and in
future in phabricator) and our bug tracker is in phabrictor. sometimes It
feels we are in another planet.
Wikimedia has a mirror in github but we close pull requests immediately
and
we barely check issues raised there. Also there
is a big notice in
github[1], "if you want to help, do it our way". Suddenly I got an idea
that if we can synchronize github activities with gerrit and phabricator,
it would help us by letting others help in their own way. It made me so
excited that I wrote a bot yesterday to automatically duplicates patches
of
pull requests in gerrit and makes a comment in
the pull request stating
we
made a patch in gerrit. I did a test in pywikibot
and it worked well
[2][3].
Note that the bot doesn't create a pull request for every gerrit patch
but
it creates a gerrit patch for every (open) pull
requests.
But before I go on we need to discuss on several important aspects of
this
idea:
1- Is it really necessary to do this? Do you agree we need something like
that?
2-I think a bot to duplicate pull requests is not the best idea since it
creates them under the bot account and not under original user account.
We
can create a plugin for phabrictor to do that but
issues like privacy
would
bother us. (using OAuth wouldn't be a bad
idea) What do you think? What
do
you suggest?
3- Even if we create a plugin, still a bot to synchronize comments and
code
reviews is needed. I wrote my original code in a
way that I can expand
this
to do this job too, but do you agree we need to
do this?
4- We can also expand this bot to create a phabricator task for each
issue
I think this is a cool idea. What I like about this is the general
idea of trying to lower the barriers to contribution while still
preserving a single source of truth and reviewer workflow.
RobLa and I talked a couple of times in the past about the potential
usefulness of something similar. I'm actually more interested in
seeing tools built to bridge GitHub and Phabricator than GitHub and
Gerrit however. Gerrit's days as the Wikimedia code review system are
numbered and Phabricator will be the next system we use.
Facebook uses a bot to transfer pull requests from GitHub [5] to their
Phabricator instance [6] for HHVM. Having a system like this for the
Wikimedia projects would be nice. It would be interesting to see
something similar built to transfer GitHub issues to Phabricator as
well possibly with an additional status change on the GitHub side when
the associated Phabricator task was resolved.
[5]:
https://github.com/facebook/hhvm/pull/4924#issuecomment-76651483
[6]:
https://reviews.facebook.net/D34215
Bryan
--
Bryan Davis Wikimedia Foundation <bd808(a)wikimedia.org>
[[m:User:BDavis_(WMF)]] Sr Software Engineer Boise, ID USA
irc: bd808 v:415.839.6885 x6855
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l