HomePhabricator

ArchCom RFC Meeting W41: CREDITs (2016-10-12, #wikimedia-office)
ActivePublic

Hosted by daniel on Oct 12 2016, 9:00 PM - 10:00 PM.

Description

Agenda

Meeting summary

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

121:00:22 <robla> #startmeeting RFC meeting (E316)
221:00:22 <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.
321:00:22 <wm-labs-meetbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
421:00:22 <wm-labs-meetbot> The meeting name has been set to 'rfc_meeting__e316_'
521:00:36 <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/
621:00:36 <stashbot> T139300: Create formal process for CREDITS files - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T139300
721:00:49 <robla> hi folks
821:03:01 <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
921:04:25 <robla> he asked about the signifcance of this: "We would like to recognize the following persons for their contribution to MediaWiki."
1021:05:08 <robla> is there any reason we shouldn't go through and get everyone that contributed a few lines of code?
1121:05:34 <bd808> nope. {{done}}
1221:06:04 <robla> settled! :-)
1321:06:06 <bd808> git log --format='%aN <%aE>' | sort -f | uniq
1421:06:28 <jdlrobson> Is there any reason we distinguish between "Patch contributor" and "Developer" here > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version/Credits
1521:06:28 * robla tries that just to see what emerges
1621:07:19 <bd808> looks like you may need to add LC_ALL=C for the sort to work
1721:07:21 <jdlrobson> Note according to that page yuvi panda is not a developer which seems a strange statement :)
1821:12:05 <bd808> I think the difference between developer and contributor is pretty arbitrary at this point
1921:12:20 <bd808> it may have once meant something, but it feels stale
2021:12:39 <robla> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/diffusion/MWVA/browse/master/.mailmap
2121:12:41 <bd808> The "old timers" should weigh in on that though I think
2221:13:08 <Emufarmers> I think it means I paid off the right person back when access was through SVN :>
2321:13:54 <bd808> legoktm moved my entry from one list to the other. It made me feel good but otherwise did not change my life
2421:14:11 <robla> yeah, the developer vs contributor distinction was clearly an SVN commit access versus "ask someone to patch for you"
2521:15:10 <robla> back in ye olden days of SVN and post-commit review. Post-commit review made being a "developer" a much bigger deal
2621:15:52 <bd808> ah. so developers had "karma" to commit to the trunk?
2721:16:11 <robla> bd808: yeah, essentially
2821:16:56 <robla> committing to trunk wasn't as big of a deal because trunk only got deployed 2-3 times a year
2921:18:16 <legoktm> hello
3021:18:20 <robla> #info 14:06:05 <bd808> git log --format='%aN <%aE>' | sort -f | uniq
3121:18:31 <robla> legoktm: hi!
3221:18:41 <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
3321:18:47 <Scott_WUaS> Hello Legoktm (and All)!
3421:19:46 <bd808> oh hi netsplit. we missed you
3521:20:10 <legoktm> I could see making a distinction for people with +2 ("Developers") and then other contributors as we want to recognize those people more
3621:20:59 <robla> bd808: what would the mailmap line look like for Bryan Davis <bd808@bd808.com>?
3721:21:40 <bd808> robla: probably something like "<bd808@bd808.com> <bd808@wikimedia.org>"
3821:22:12 <bd808> I think that's the order to say that <bd808@wikimedia.org> is preferred
3921:23:37 <bd808> apparently James_F has already started a .mailmap for us that just needs some updates
4021:24:06 <robla> there's a bikeshedding conversation we could go through on this
4121:24:14 <bd808> red!
4221:24:15 <legoktm> I'd be in favor of just having one giant list in CREDITS
4321:24:16 <bd808> blue!
4421:24:23 <bd808> legoktm: +1
4521:24:27 <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?
4621:25:11 <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
4721:25:18 <robla> there's a bikeshedding conversation we could go through on this. seems sensible to have one line per contributor rather than unique email
4821:26:20 <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?)
4921:26:51 <legoktm> Which is why I'm in favor of just one list in CREDITS
5021:27:12 <jdlrobson> I think it simplifies ** a lot ** especially if it's autogenerated
5121:27:21 <robla> agreed
5221:27:23 <jdlrobson> i see a lot of inconsistencies between https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/graphs/contributors and the developers list
5321:27:46 <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
5421:28:28 <jdlrobson> possibly.. but for example I see Florian in patch contributors but commit wise he's on par with Matt Flaschen
5521:29:11 <Reedy> Probably just because no one has thought to move him :)
5621:29:18 * Reedy goes to fix that
5721:29:26 <Krenair> we're counting just core, right?
5821:29:32 <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?
5921:30:17 <jdlrobson> to be clear i think one list makes sense
6021:30:47 <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
6121:30:49 <legoktm> Okay, does anyone disagree with having one list in CREDITS?
6221:31:46 <legoktm> Right now myself, jdlrobson, and bd808 have expressed support for one list
6321:31:58 <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
6421:32:09 <robla> legoktm: I don't think there is anyone here who does. add me to the "support" list
6521:32:55 <legoktm> Can I #agree that? Or is that too bold?
6621:33:03 <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
6721:33:24 <legoktm> I can poke Tim who's sitting next to me ;)
6821:33:37 <robla> please do! :-)
6921:34:20 <robla> I'm inclined to say #agree on this, even if it's just the handful of us active in this conversation
7021:34:36 <TimStarling> it's fine with me
7121:34:47 <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?" ?
7221:34:55 <bd808> jdlrobson: I think the list should be generated via git. As to when to do that, monthly?
7321:35:12 <jdlrobson> bd808: +1
7421:35:23 <jdlrobson> I assume we could do that as a deploy script?
7521:35:28 <legoktm> bd808: sounds good to me. at minimum, right before a stable release
7621:35:30 <jdlrobson> (or per release)
7721:35:47 <Reedy> As a pre-branching (for release branching) task makes sense
7821:35:47 <legoktm> #agree The "Developers" and "Patch contributors" sections in the CREDITS file should be merged into one list
7921:35:49 <bd808> oh! at release cut would be easy I think
8021:36:05 <robla> thanks legoktm
8121:36:13 <Reedy> No point doing it per WMF branch etc
8221:36:13 <jdlrobson> yeh thanks legoktm bd808
8321:36:28 <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
8421:36:34 <jdlrobson> Scott_WUaS: was that a question?
8521:37:15 <robla> bd808: that seems like a really good approach
8621:37:37 <Scott_WUaS> jdlrobson: yes, it was a question ...
8721:38:31 <Scott_WUaS> And similarly what does WMF do now, in lieu of not having such criteria ... to build on?
8821:38:43 <legoktm> Scott_WUaS: we just agreed to merge the two lists.
8921:38:43 <Scott_WUaS> Or Wikidata?
9021:38:55 <Scott_WUaS> Thx
9121:39:01 <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
9221:40:06 <robla> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version/Credits
9321:40:15 <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)
9421:40:34 <robla> and of course: https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:MediaWiki/Credits
9521:41:40 <Scott_WUaS> robla: language by language makes WMF credits for "developers on the cluster" much more complicated, I imagine :)
9621:41:55 <robla> it does
9721:42:43 <Scott_WUaS> (robla: what are best practices, Scott_WUaS wonders)
9821:42:53 <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
9921:43:26 <legoktm> So I think the part that still needs to be discussed is the implementation and frequency of updating that list?
10021:44:10 <bd808> We've got a general suggestion of generating via git-log and adding that as a branch cut step
10121:44:30 <bd808> s/branch/release branch/
10221:44:56 <robla> legoktm: per-tarball release branch (2 times a year) seems like a reasonable cadence to me
10321:45:07 <robla> any objection to that frequency?
10421:45:29 <legoktm> sounds good to me
10521:45:55 <robla> #agree update 2 times a year; each time a release branch gets cut
10621:45:55 <legoktm> and that person would also be responsible for updating the .mailmap or?
10721:46:42 <bd808> mailmap tuning would be easiest based off that diff
10821:46:44 <robla> I think the implementation is somethign that should probably should have some further discussion
10921:47:06 <bd808> but yeah it seems like a fine grained detail
11021:47:11 <robla> we might be able to first use a simple mailmap on the mediawiki/core branch, and then iterate from there
11121:47:24 <robla> s/core branch/core repo/
11221:47:56 <robla> seems like we should strive to move toward a more suitable list for Special:Version off of our big wikis
11321:48:02 <bd808> we have a 333 line .mailmap already but it seems to be missing some obvious dups
11421:48:34 <robla> I think we all agree that the status quo is lacking
11521:49:01 <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
11621:50:02 <robla> it seems maybe this is the order of operations:
11721:50:15 <Reedy> The .mailmap looks very inconsistent
11821:50:29 <robla> 1. update the RFC for what we want the minimum-viable product for an update script
11921:50:59 <robla> 2. update the CREDITS file manually from a very early version of the script
12021:51:30 <robla> 3. discuss the update in Gerrit/Phab/wherever, manually updating for the mistakes that were made in the first run
12121:52:03 <robla> 4. do manual updates until someone finds the time to automate it
12221:52:20 <robla> does that seem like a good way forward?
12321:54:24 <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)
12421:55:15 <jdlrobson> that sounds good to me
12521:55:39 <jdlrobson> I guess my only remaining question is what happens to the existing CREDITS file bundled in core
12621:55:58 <jdlrobson> if that stays in the same repo we should be clear that people shouldnt add their names there and that its automatically generated
12721:56:06 <jdlrobson> if it's not in the repo, then we dont need to worry
12821:56:08 <Scott_WUaS> sounds good Rob!
12921:56:24 <robla> I think it gets replaced by the first person bold enough to replace it
13021:56:54 <robla> as far as the automatic generation, we'll have to make a point of putting in warnings
13121:57:22 <robla> ...and probably manually eyeball it each run to ensure we didn't accidentally remove someone who was manually added
13221:57:33 <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?
13321:58:03 <Scott_WUaS> *there
13421:58:15 <robla> anyway...we're about to lose access to Freenode, I think, so I'm going to end the meeting in 30 seconds
13521:58:29 <robla> we can continue the conversation in #wikimedia-tech
13621:58:33 <Scott_WUaS> Thank you, All!
13721:59:04 <robla> next week, we may be talking about T145472
13821:59:05 <stashbot> T145472: Surveying Cookie Use - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T145472
13921:59:17 <robla> #endmeeting

Other meetings

Architecture meetings
13:00 PT ArchCom Planning Meetingsupcomingall since 2016-03-30
14:00 PT ArchCom-RFC Meetingsupcomingall since 2015-09-09

Recurring Event

Event Series
This event is an instance of E66: ArchCom RFC Meeting Wxx: <topic TBD> (<see "Starts" field>, #wikimedia-office), and repeats every week.

Event Timeline

RobLa-WMF renamed this event from ArchCom RFC Meeting Wxx: <topic TBD> (<see "Starts" field>, #wikimedia-office) to ArchCom RFC Meeting W41: CREDITs (<see "Starts" field>, #wikimedia-office).Oct 5 2016, 10:50 PM
RobLa-WMF updated the event description. (Show Details)
RobLa-WMF renamed this event from ArchCom RFC Meeting W41: CREDITs (<see "Starts" field>, #wikimedia-office) to ArchCom RFC Meeting W41: CREDITs (2016-10-12, #wikimedia-office).
RobLa-WMF changed the end date for this event from Oct 12 2016, 9:00 PM to Oct 12 2016, 10:00 PM.Oct 12 2016, 8:48 PM
RobLa-WMF updated the event description. (Show Details)Oct 12 2016, 10:05 PM
daniel renamed this event from ArchCom RFC Meeting W41: CREDITs (2016-10-12, #wikimedia-office) to ArchCom RFC Meeting Wxx: <topic TBD> (<see "Starts" field>, #wikimedia-office).Nov 21 2016, 6:11 PM
daniel changed the host of this event from RobLa-WMF to daniel.
daniel invited: ; uninvited: .
daniel updated the event description. (Show Details)
daniel updated the event description. (Show Details)Dec 9 2016, 7:40 AM
daniel renamed this event from ArchCom RFC Meeting Wxx: <topic TBD> (<see "Starts" field>, #wikimedia-office) to ArchCom RFC Meeting W41: CREDITs (2016-10-12, #wikimedia-office).