Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-02/Technology report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jarry1250 (talk | contribs) at 15:05, 1 April 2012 (finish first main story). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Technology report

Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Questions over Gerrit dominate developer discussions

The change in core version control system from Subversion to Git, insofar as it can be separated from the change in code review systems, seems to have bedded in well after last week's switchover (see previous Signpost coverage). By contrast, new code review tool Gerrit continues to prove controversial, spawning dozens of threads on developer mailing lists.

Though the issues raised (many of which seem, at least on the surface, to be fairly minor) are both too numerous and in many cases too technical to be adequately summarised in a couple of lines, some general comments can be made. For example, it soon became clear that developers were treating the vast majority of the problems encountered (such as an awkward system for responding to comments), the taglines that accompany certain types of review simply as issues – bugs needing to be fixed – rather than internalising them as complaints with the fundamentals of the new code review process. Work on a number of these has started already, though many will require changes to Gerrit itself. On the whole developers seem to be hopeful all their issues with the new code review process can be resolved given enough time, though how long this determination will take if they continue as they are now remains to be seen. Nevertheless, a handful of the the issues raised do seem to have real sticking power, including concerns that Gerrit's code review paradigm may be fundamentally ill-suited to the review of large or complex changes (wikitech-l mailing list).

One potential future fly in the ointment is a planned audit of Gerrit's performance in three months' time, a process which could lead to Gerrit actively being abandoned in favour of a competitor system such as Phabricator. Needless to say, should grievances with Gerrit not have been resolved by then – with or without great appetite for a second difficult migration – the audit could be a difficult one to manage. Either way, it could take many months before the dust finally settles on the migration.

Chennai hackathon

In brief

Not all fixes may have gone live to WMF sites at the time of writing; some may not be scheduled to go live for many weeks.

How you can help