Agenda
- Location: #wikimedia-office IRC channel
- Meeting type: TBD
- Time: 2016-10-12, Wednesday 21:00 UTC (2pm PDT, 23:00 CEST)
- Topic:
Meeting summary
- RFC: CREDITS file (T139300) | Channel is logged and publicly posted (DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTE) |​ Logs: https://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/ (robla, 21:00:36)
- LINK: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/diffusion/MWVA/browse/master/.mailmap (robla, 21:12:39)
- 14:06:05Â <bd808>Â git log --format='%aN <%aE>' | sort -f | uniq (robla, 21:18:20)
- 21:35:47 <legoktm> #agree The "Developers" and "Patch contributors" sections in the CREDITS file should be merged into one list
- LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version/Credits (robla, 21:40:06)
- AGREED: update 2 times a year; each time a release branch gets cut (robla, 21:45:55)
Meeting ended at 21:59:17 UTC.
People present (lines said)
- robla (54)
- bd808 (24)
- legoktm (18)
- jdlrobson (17)
- Scott_WUaS (13)
- Reedy (5)
- wm-labs-meetbot (3)
- stashbot (2)
- TimStarling (1)
- Emufarmers (1)
- Krenair (1)
Log
| 1 | 21:00:22 <robla> #startmeeting RFC meeting (E316) |
|---|---|
| 2 | 21:00:22 <wm-labs-meetbot> Meeting started Wed Oct 12 21:00:22 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is robla. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. |
| 3 | 21:00:22 <wm-labs-meetbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. |
| 4 | 21:00:22 <wm-labs-meetbot> The meeting name has been set to 'rfc_meeting__e316_' |
| 5 | 21:00:36 <robla> #topic RFC: CREDITS file (T139300) | Channel is logged and publicly posted (DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTE) |​ Logs: https://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/ |
| 6 | 21:00:36 <stashbot> T139300: Create formal process for CREDITS files - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T139300 |
| 7 | 21:00:49 <robla> hi folks |
| 8 | 21:03:01 <robla> we had a conversation that jdlrobson started about the CREDITS file that was going strong a while back on wikitech-l, but tapered off |
| 9 | 21:04:25 <robla> he asked about the signifcance of this: "We would like to recognize the following persons for their contribution to MediaWiki." |
| 10 | 21:05:08 <robla> is there any reason we shouldn't go through and get everyone that contributed a few lines of code? |
| 11 | 21:05:34 <bd808> nope. {{done}} |
| 12 | 21:06:04 <robla> settled! :-) |
| 13 | 21:06:06 <bd808> git log --format='%aN <%aE>' | sort -f | uniq |
| 14 | 21:06:28 <jdlrobson> Is there any reason we distinguish between "Patch contributor" and "Developer" here > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version/Credits |
| 15 | 21:06:28 * robla tries that just to see what emerges |
| 16 | 21:07:19 <bd808> looks like you may need to add LC_ALL=C for the sort to work |
| 17 | 21:07:21 <jdlrobson> Note according to that page yuvi panda is not a developer which seems a strange statement :) |
| 18 | 21:12:05 <bd808> I think the difference between developer and contributor is pretty arbitrary at this point |
| 19 | 21:12:20 <bd808> it may have once meant something, but it feels stale |
| 20 | 21:12:39 <robla> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/diffusion/MWVA/browse/master/.mailmap |
| 21 | 21:12:41 <bd808> The "old timers" should weigh in on that though I think |
| 22 | 21:13:08 <Emufarmers> I think it means I paid off the right person back when access was through SVN :> |
| 23 | 21:13:54 <bd808> legoktm moved my entry from one list to the other. It made me feel good but otherwise did not change my life |
| 24 | 21:14:11 <robla> yeah, the developer vs contributor distinction was clearly an SVN commit access versus "ask someone to patch for you" |
| 25 | 21:15:10 <robla> back in ye olden days of SVN and post-commit review. Post-commit review made being a "developer" a much bigger deal |
| 26 | 21:15:52 <bd808> ah. so developers had "karma" to commit to the trunk? |
| 27 | 21:16:11 <robla> bd808: yeah, essentially |
| 28 | 21:16:56 <robla> committing to trunk wasn't as big of a deal because trunk only got deployed 2-3 times a year |
| 29 | 21:18:16 <legoktm> hello |
| 30 | 21:18:20 <robla> #info 14:06:05 <bd808> git log --format='%aN <%aE>' | sort -f | uniq |
| 31 | 21:18:31 <robla> legoktm: hi! |
| 32 | 21:18:41 <bd808> so the hard part of implementing this change will be making the mailmap file. There are 643 lines right now but many are obvious dupes |
| 33 | 21:18:47 <Scott_WUaS> Hello Legoktm (and All)! |
| 34 | 21:19:46 <bd808> oh hi netsplit. we missed you |
| 35 | 21:20:10 <legoktm> I could see making a distinction for people with +2 ("Developers") and then other contributors as we want to recognize those people more |
| 36 | 21:20:59 <robla> bd808: what would the mailmap line look like for Bryan Davis <bd808@bd808.com>? |
| 37 | 21:21:40 <bd808> robla: probably something like "<bd808@bd808.com> <bd808@wikimedia.org>" |
| 38 | 21:22:12 <bd808> I think that's the order to say that <bd808@wikimedia.org> is preferred |
| 39 | 21:23:37 <bd808> apparently James_F has already started a .mailmap for us that just needs some updates |
| 40 | 21:24:06 <robla> there's a bikeshedding conversation we could go through on this |
| 41 | 21:24:14 <bd808> red! |
| 42 | 21:24:15 <legoktm> I'd be in favor of just having one giant list in CREDITS |
| 43 | 21:24:16 <bd808> blue! |
| 44 | 21:24:23 <bd808> legoktm: +1 |
| 45 | 21:24:27 <jdlrobson> legoktm: what would be the criteria? Right now we have no criteria which makes that hard. If someone asks to be moved to "Developers" how do we assess that? |
| 46 | 21:25:11 <legoktm> But I'd like to retain the hardcoded list at the top of Special:Version for people who have made long term/lasting contributions to MW |
| 47 | 21:25:18 <robla> there's a bikeshedding conversation we could go through on this. seems sensible to have one line per contributor rather than unique email |
| 48 | 21:26:20 <legoktm> jdlrobson: well if there are two lists, I think the only reasonable distinction is either LOC or whether they have +2 or not. But the latter devalues SVN commiters (or we assume everyone with SVN access == +2?) |
| 49 | 21:26:51 <legoktm> Which is why I'm in favor of just one list in CREDITS |
| 50 | 21:27:12 <jdlrobson> I think it simplifies ** a lot ** especially if it's autogenerated |
| 51 | 21:27:21 <robla> agreed |
| 52 | 21:27:23 <jdlrobson> i see a lot of inconsistencies between https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/graphs/contributors and the developers list |
| 53 | 21:27:46 <legoktm> jdlrobson: well, github's list is probably more wrong because it requires you to have a github account, and associate your commit email with github |
| 54 | 21:28:28 <jdlrobson> possibly.. but for example I see Florian in patch contributors but commit wise he's on par with Matt Flaschen |
| 55 | 21:29:11 <Reedy> Probably just because no one has thought to move him :) |
| 56 | 21:29:18 * Reedy goes to fix that |
| 57 | 21:29:26 <Krenair> we're counting just core, right? |
| 58 | 21:29:32 <legoktm> jdlrobson: I'm confused, I've said twice now that we should just merge the two lists into one. Do you want to keep them separate? |
| 59 | 21:30:17 <jdlrobson> to be clear i think one list makes sense |
| 60 | 21:30:47 <robla> Krenair: yeah, what we're talking about now really only covers core, but you're right, there's also another big complicated conv about libraries and extensions |
| 61 | 21:30:49 <legoktm> Okay, does anyone disagree with having one list in CREDITS? |
| 62 | 21:31:46 <legoktm> Right now myself, jdlrobson, and bd808 have expressed support for one list |
| 63 | 21:31:58 <jdlrobson> Well it depends how that list is made. If it's hand curated we still have some of the same problems... but definitely one list is better than 2 |
| 64 | 21:32:09 <robla> legoktm: I don't think there is anyone here who does. add me to the "support" list |
| 65 | 21:32:55 <legoktm> Can I #agree that? Or is that too bold? |
| 66 | 21:33:03 <robla> we didn't really have an ArchCom quorum for the earlier planning meeting, so we probably don't have the usual suspects here, either |
| 67 | 21:33:24 <legoktm> I can poke Tim who's sitting next to me ;) |
| 68 | 21:33:37 <robla> please do! :-) |
| 69 | 21:34:20 <robla> I'm inclined to say #agree on this, even if it's just the handful of us active in this conversation |
| 70 | 21:34:36 <TimStarling> it's fine with me |
| 71 | 21:34:47 <Scott_WUaS> jdlrobson: How to structure this here to scale, depending on WMF and Wikidata's plans? ... "legoktm: what would be the criteria? Right now we have no criteria which makes that hard. If someone asks to be moved to "Developers" how do we assess that?" ? |
| 72 | 21:34:55 <bd808> jdlrobson: I think the list should be generated via git. As to when to do that, monthly? |
| 73 | 21:35:12 <jdlrobson> bd808: +1 |
| 74 | 21:35:23 <jdlrobson> I assume we could do that as a deploy script? |
| 75 | 21:35:28 <legoktm> bd808: sounds good to me. at minimum, right before a stable release |
| 76 | 21:35:30 <jdlrobson> (or per release) |
| 77 | 21:35:47 <Reedy> As a pre-branching (for release branching) task makes sense |
| 78 | 21:35:47 <legoktm> #agree The "Developers" and "Patch contributors" sections in the CREDITS file should be merged into one list |
| 79 | 21:35:49 <bd808> oh! at release cut would be easy I think |
| 80 | 21:36:05 <robla> thanks legoktm |
| 81 | 21:36:13 <Reedy> No point doing it per WMF branch etc |
| 82 | 21:36:13 <jdlrobson> yeh thanks legoktm bd808 |
| 83 | 21:36:28 <bd808> we could just get the `git log --format='%aN <%aE>' | LC_ALL='C' sort -f | uniq` bit added to whatever magic script is used by releng |
| 84 | 21:36:34 <jdlrobson> Scott_WUaS: was that a question? |
| 85 | 21:37:15 <robla> bd808: that seems like a really good approach |
| 86 | 21:37:37 <Scott_WUaS> jdlrobson: yes, it was a question ... |
| 87 | 21:38:31 <Scott_WUaS> And similarly what does WMF do now, in lieu of not having such criteria ... to build on? |
| 88 | 21:38:43 <legoktm> Scott_WUaS: we just agreed to merge the two lists. |
| 89 | 21:38:43 <Scott_WUaS> Or Wikidata? |
| 90 | 21:38:55 <Scott_WUaS> Thx |
| 91 | 21:39:01 <robla> Scott_WUaS: I think it depends on the scope of the CREDITS file. For the mediawiki/core repo, that seems reasonably clearly scoped to just that. but yeah, in terms of "developers on the cluster", it's harder |
| 92 | 21:40:06 <robla> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version/Credits |
| 93 | 21:40:15 <Scott_WUaS> robla: thx ... (Curious how other software organizations do this with teams or "developers on the cluster" ... a Google, an IBM et al .. thx) |
| 94 | 21:40:34 <robla> and of course: https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:MediaWiki/Credits |
| 95 | 21:41:40 <Scott_WUaS> robla: language by language makes WMF credits for "developers on the cluster" much more complicated, I imagine :) |
| 96 | 21:41:55 <robla> it does |
| 97 | 21:42:43 <Scott_WUaS> (robla: what are best practices, Scott_WUaS wonders) |
| 98 | 21:42:53 <robla> btw: we're going to have end this meeting 5 min early to make sure we get a log before the Freenode maintenance happens |
| 99 | 21:43:26 <legoktm> So I think the part that still needs to be discussed is the implementation and frequency of updating that list? |
| 100 | 21:44:10 <bd808> We've got a general suggestion of generating via git-log and adding that as a branch cut step |
| 101 | 21:44:30 <bd808> s/branch/release branch/ |
| 102 | 21:44:56 <robla> legoktm: per-tarball release branch (2 times a year) seems like a reasonable cadence to me |
| 103 | 21:45:07 <robla> any objection to that frequency? |
| 104 | 21:45:29 <legoktm> sounds good to me |
| 105 | 21:45:55 <robla> #agree update 2 times a year; each time a release branch gets cut |
| 106 | 21:45:55 <legoktm> and that person would also be responsible for updating the .mailmap or? |
| 107 | 21:46:42 <bd808> mailmap tuning would be easiest based off that diff |
| 108 | 21:46:44 <robla> I think the implementation is somethign that should probably should have some further discussion |
| 109 | 21:47:06 <bd808> but yeah it seems like a fine grained detail |
| 110 | 21:47:11 <robla> we might be able to first use a simple mailmap on the mediawiki/core branch, and then iterate from there |
| 111 | 21:47:24 <robla> s/core branch/core repo/ |
| 112 | 21:47:56 <robla> seems like we should strive to move toward a more suitable list for Special:Version off of our big wikis |
| 113 | 21:48:02 <bd808> we have a 333 line .mailmap already but it seems to be missing some obvious dups |
| 114 | 21:48:34 <robla> I think we all agree that the status quo is lacking |
| 115 | 21:49:01 <robla> ...so the bar isn't very high for an improvement. someone could submit a patch that is a manual update of the CREDITS file |
| 116 | 21:50:02 <robla> it seems maybe this is the order of operations: |
| 117 | 21:50:15 <Reedy> The .mailmap looks very inconsistent |
| 118 | 21:50:29 <robla> 1. update the RFC for what we want the minimum-viable product for an update script |
| 119 | 21:50:59 <robla> 2. update the CREDITS file manually from a very early version of the script |
| 120 | 21:51:30 <robla> 3. discuss the update in Gerrit/Phab/wherever, manually updating for the mistakes that were made in the first run |
| 121 | 21:52:03 <robla> 4. do manual updates until someone finds the time to automate it |
| 122 | 21:52:20 <robla> does that seem like a good way forward? |
| 123 | 21:54:24 <robla> jdlrobson: I guess I'll ask you as the author: does that seem like a sensible path forward (possibly handing off the RFC to someone else to follow through on) |
| 124 | 21:55:15 <jdlrobson> that sounds good to me |
| 125 | 21:55:39 <jdlrobson> I guess my only remaining question is what happens to the existing CREDITS file bundled in core |
| 126 | 21:55:58 <jdlrobson> if that stays in the same repo we should be clear that people shouldnt add their names there and that its automatically generated |
| 127 | 21:56:06 <jdlrobson> if it's not in the repo, then we dont need to worry |
| 128 | 21:56:08 <Scott_WUaS> sounds good Rob! |
| 129 | 21:56:24 <robla> I think it gets replaced by the first person bold enough to replace it |
| 130 | 21:56:54 <robla> as far as the automatic generation, we'll have to make a point of putting in warnings |
| 131 | 21:57:22 <robla> ...and probably manually eyeball it each run to ensure we didn't accidentally remove someone who was manually added |
| 132 | 21:57:33 <Scott_WUaS> (robla: this may be a bag of worms, but what relationship is their between crediting and compensation - and are these CREDITS for both volunteers as well as staff? |
| 133 | 21:58:03 <Scott_WUaS> *there |
| 134 | 21:58:15 <robla> anyway...we're about to lose access to Freenode, I think, so I'm going to end the meeting in 30 seconds |
| 135 | 21:58:29 <robla> we can continue the conversation in #wikimedia-tech |
| 136 | 21:58:33 <Scott_WUaS> Thank you, All! |
| 137 | 21:59:04 <robla> next week, we may be talking about T145472 |
| 138 | 21:59:05 <stashbot> T145472: Surveying Cookie Use - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T145472 |
| 139 | 21:59:17 <robla> #endmeeting |
Other meetings
| Architecture meetings | ||
|---|---|---|
| 13:00 PT ArchCom Planning Meetings | upcoming | all since 2016-03-30 |
| 14:00 PT ArchCom-RFC Meetings | upcoming | all since 2015-09-09 |