On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 16:19:02 UTC-4, Randell Jesup wrote:
> >On 2017-07-14 1:31 AM, Jim Blandy wrote:
> >> Many people seem to be asking, essentially: What will happen to old bugs?
> >> I'm trying to follow the discussion, and I'm not clear on this myself.
> >>
> >> For example, "Splinter wi
>On 2017-07-14 1:31 AM, Jim Blandy wrote:
>> Many people seem to be asking, essentially: What will happen to old bugs?
>> I'm trying to follow the discussion, and I'm not clear on this myself.
>>
>> For example, "Splinter will be turned off." For commenting and reviewing,
>> okay, understood. What
>On 7/13/17 9:04 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
>> It is also what newer systems
>> do today (e.g. GitHub and the full Phabricator suite)
>
>I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get discussion
>on the PR that should have gone in the issue, with the result that people
>following the issu
Mark Côté wrote:
> It was announced in May
> (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.tools/4qroY2Iia9I),
> linked to in this forum:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/qh5scX3Gk2U/xCWe8jrOAQAJ
I stand corrected, thanks. I would've thought that'd be put in
moz.dev.plann
Hi Joe,
I just want to publicly apologize for being sarcastic in my original
post to you.
I could've found a better voice and the frustration clouded my
judgement.
I'm sorry.
Edmund
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://
On 2017-07-17 8:46 PM, Edmund Wong wrote:
Mike Hoye wrote:
Given that we've been talking about this stuff for years now, I think
it's very clear that we haven't come to this point by "somebody at the
top issuing an edict that they want something modern"; the decision to
commit to Phabricator w
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> If the bug is only serving as an anchor to track code review, then the
> question we should be asking is "do we even need a bug."
>
In my experience the answer to this is "yes, we need a bug". I very rarely
have a one-to-one mapping betwe
Mike Hoye wrote:
>
> Given that we've been talking about this stuff for years now, I think
> it's very clear that we haven't come to this point by "somebody at the
> top issuing an edict that they want something modern"; the decision to
> commit to Phabricator was ultimately announced on May 11th
I filed a central tracker bug for production Phabricator deployment:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1381498. I have filed
blockers and dependencies for a variety of related tasks as discussed in
these threads.
Mark
On 2017-07-14 11:33 AM, Milan Sreckovic wrote:
Replying in ge
On 7/16/17 11:10 PM, Edmund Wong wrote:
Joe Hildebrand wrote:
I'm responding at the top of the thread here so that I'm not singling out any
particular response.
We didn't make clear in this process how much work Mark and his team did ahead
of the decision to gather feedback from senior engine
> On Jul 15, 2017, at 23:36, Gabriele Svelto wrote:
>
>> On 14/07/2017 05:39, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get
>> discussion on the PR that should have gone in the issue, with the result
>> that people following the issue don't see half the
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 11:39:38 PM UTC-4, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 7/13/17 9:04 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
> > It is also what newer systems
> > do today (e.g. GitHub and the full Phabricator suite)
>
> I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get
> discussion on the PR that s
Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> I'm responding at the top of the thread here so that I'm not singling out any
> particular response.
>
> We didn't make clear in this process how much work Mark and his team did
> ahead of the decision to gather feedback from senior engineers on both Selena
> and my team
On 14/07/2017 05:39, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get
> discussion on the PR that should have gone in the issue, with the result
> that people following the issue don't see half the relevant discussion.
> In particular, it's common to go off from
On Jul 14, 2017 6:27 PM, "Mike Hommey" wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 01:00:51PM -0400, Ben Kelly wrote:
> I know feedback was collected, but maybe not from this group.
Feedback was collected from a selected set of the people who do the most
reviews. I'm one of them. I don't think I'm breaking a
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 01:00:51PM -0400, Ben Kelly wrote:
> Also a random reply.
>
> I think this kind of effort is more likely to be successful if it gets
> input and buy-in from the key stakeholders. In this case that would be the
> most frequent reviewers.
>
> It would be nice to run a bugzi
Also a random reply.
I think this kind of effort is more likely to be successful if it gets
input and buy-in from the key stakeholders. In this case that would be the
most frequent reviewers.
It would be nice to run a bugzilla query to find the top 10 or 20
reviewers. Talk to these folks, solve
Replying in general, to a random message :)
I don't have the numbers, but I imagine reviews are happening in the
hundreds every day (if we land almost 300 patches.) So, I wouldn't
expect the conversation about adding/removing/changing tools involved in
reviews to be any less complicated, pass
On 2017-07-14 1:31 AM, Jim Blandy wrote:
Many people seem to be asking, essentially: What will happen to old bugs?
I'm trying to follow the discussion, and I'm not clear on this myself.
For example, "Splinter will be turned off." For commenting and reviewing,
okay, understood. What about viewing
I'm
> On 14 Jul 2017, at 11:39, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> On 7/13/17 9:04 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
>> It is also what newer systems
>> do today (e.g. GitHub and the full Phabricator suite)
>
> I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get discussion on
> the PR that should have
lets all try
I'm
> On 14 Jul 2017, at 13:48, Jim Blandy wrote:
>
> Yeah, this is kind of the opposite of "No New Rationale".
>
> https://air.mozilla.org/friday-plenary-rust-and-the-community/
>
>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:49 PM, David Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 a
On 7/14/17 1:31 AM, Jim Blandy wrote:
But keeping all the comments in one thread is a mixed blessing, too
Absolutely.
I guess what I'm saying is we should try to have some guidelines for
when it's appropriate to take the discussion back to the bug instead of
continuing it in the review...
Yeah, this is kind of the opposite of "No New Rationale".
https://air.mozilla.org/friday-plenary-rust-and-the-community/
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:49 PM, David Anderson wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 1:38:18 PM UTC-7, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> > I'm responding at the top of the thread he
Many people seem to be asking, essentially: What will happen to old bugs?
I'm trying to follow the discussion, and I'm not clear on this myself.
For example, "Splinter will be turned off." For commenting and reviewing,
okay, understood. What about viewing patches on old bugs?
Yes, Phabricator wil
On 7/13/17 9:04 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
It is also what newer systems
do today (e.g. GitHub and the full Phabricator suite)
I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get
discussion on the PR that should have gone in the issue, with the result
that people following the issue don'
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
> On 2017-07-13 3:54 PM, Randell Jesup wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> But indeed having also the patches in bugzilla would be good.
>
> no, it would be bad for patches to be duplicated into b
On 2017-07-13 3:54 PM, Randell Jesup wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
But indeed having also the patches in bugzilla would be good.
no, it would be bad for patches to be duplicated into bugzilla. we're
moving from bugzilla/mozreview to phabricator for code review
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 1:38:18 PM UTC-7, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> I'm responding at the top of the thread here so that I'm not singling out any
> particular response.
>
> We didn't make clear in this process how much work Mark and his team did
> ahead of the decision to gather feedback fro
I'm responding at the top of the thread here so that I'm not singling out any
particular response.
We didn't make clear in this process how much work Mark and his team did ahead
of the decision to gather feedback from senior engineers on both Selena and my
teams, and how deeply committed the di
>On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
>
>> But indeed having also the patches in bugzilla would be good.
>>>
>> no, it would be bad for patches to be duplicated into bugzilla. we're
>> moving from bugzilla/mozreview to phabricator for code review, duplicating
>> phabricate reviews
>>> To answer the other part of your question, MozReview will be disabled for
>>> active use across the board, but it is currently used by a small number of
>>> projects. Splinter will be disabled on a per-product basis, as there may be
>>> some projects that can't, won't, or shouldn't be migrated
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
>
>> Consider that we are talking about "turning off" mozreview now. Will all
>> the bugzilla links to those reviews go dead? Or do we have to maintain a
>> second service in read-only mode forever?
>
> the patches will be archived in some for
On 7/12/17 11:54 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
or uploading patches directly to bugzilla.
But still rewriting existing links (including from the mirrored review
comment comments, so it's clear which diff the review comments applied
to), right?
-Boris
_
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
> Consider that we are talking about "turning off" mozreview now. Will all
>> the bugzilla links to those reviews go dead? Or do we have to maintain a
>> second service in read-only mode forever?
>>
>
> the patches will be archived in some for
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
> But indeed having also the patches in bugzilla would be good.
>>
> no, it would be bad for patches to be duplicated into bugzilla. we're
> moving from bugzilla/mozreview to phabricator for code review, duplicating
> phabricate reviews back i
Milan Sreckovic wrote:
One thing that hasn't been explicitly mentioned, and I hope switching to
phabricator would fix it (though it does sounds like an orthogonal
issue) - the patches that are attached to bugzilla are often not the
ones that actually landed, because last minute changes were made
Perfect, love it.
One thing that hasn't been explicitly mentioned, and I hope switching to
phabricator would fix it (though it does sounds like an orthogonal
issue) - the patches that are attached to bugzilla are often not the
ones that actually landed, because last minute changes were made an
Consider that we are talking about "turning off" mozreview now. Will all
the bugzilla links to those reviews go dead? Or do we have to maintain a
second service in read-only mode forever?
the patches will be archived in some form.
how this looks is yet to be fully fleshed out - ideas curren
On 12-Jul-17 11:27, Byron Jones wrote:
...
But indeed having also the patches in bugzilla would be good.
no, it would be bad for patches to be duplicated into bugzilla. we're
moving from bugzilla/mozreview to phabricator for code review,
duplicating phabricate reviews back into the old system
Yeah, I live in the assumption that bugzilla bugs will contain all the
review information also
in phabricator era.
i believe the current plan is to mirror just the outcome of the review
to bugzilla (ie. that a review exists, and set the review flag).
if comments should be mirrored to bugzilla
On 07/12/2017 04:20 PM, Ben Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Byron Jones wrote:
instead of disabling splinter for phabricator backed products, we could
make
it a read-only patch viewer.
Given the number of bugs that exi
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Byron Jones wrote:
> > instead of disabling splinter for phabricator backed products, we could
> make
> > it a read-only patch viewer.
>
> Given the number of bugs that exist with patches attached, that wo
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Byron Jones wrote:
> instead of disabling splinter for phabricator backed products, we could make
> it a read-only patch viewer.
Given the number of bugs that exist with patches attached, that would
be greatly appreciated. I would also assume that attaching patch
To answer the other part of your question, MozReview will be disabled for
active use across the board, but it is currently used by a small number of
projects. Splinter will be disabled on a per-product basis, as there may be
some projects that can't, won't, or shouldn't be migrated to Phabricator
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 09:59:57PM -0400, Mark Côté wrote:
> On 2017-07-11 9:51 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Mark Côté wrote:
> > > * MozReview and Splinter turned off in early December.
> >
> > Is this bugzilla-wide? I know that other project use splinter still
On 2017-07-11 9:51 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Mark Côté wrote:
* MozReview and Splinter turned off in early December.
Is this bugzilla-wide? I know that other project use splinter still.
Will those projects be able to use phabricator for their projects?
>
> F
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Mark Côté wrote:
> * MozReview and Splinter turned off in early December.
Is this bugzilla-wide? I know that other project use splinter still.
Will those projects be able to use phabricator for their projects?
For instance, NSS uses a separate instance of phabri
We're currently trying to figure that out. It's unlikely that it will
be available for the initial launch of Phabricator, but we hope to have
it not too long after. I'll have an update in a couple weeks.
Mark
On 2017-07-11 7:32 PM, Chris Pearce wrote:
What is the status of push-to-review s
What is the status of push-to-review support?
Chris.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 8:42:06 AM UTC+12, Mark Côté wrote:
> Hi all, here's a brief update on the project to deploy and integrate
> Phabricator at Mozilla:
>
> * Development Phabricator instance is up at
> https://mozphab.dev.mozaw
49 matches
Mail list logo
