Page MenuHomePhabricator


Authored By
Oct 12 2016, 10:01 PM
12 KB
Referenced Files


21:00:22 <robla> #startmeeting RFC meeting (E316)
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
21:00:22 <wm-labs-meetbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:00:22 <wm-labs-meetbot> The meeting name has been set to 'rfc_meeting__e316_'
21:00:36 <robla> #topic RFC: CREDITS file (T139300) | Channel is logged and publicly posted (DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTE) |​ Logs:
21:00:36 <stashbot> T139300: Create formal process for CREDITS files -
21:00:49 <robla> hi folks
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
21:04:25 <robla> he asked about the signifcance of this: "We would like to recognize the following persons for their contribution to MediaWiki."
21:05:08 <robla> is there any reason we shouldn't go through and get everyone that contributed a few lines of code?
21:05:34 <bd808> nope. {{done}}
21:06:04 <robla> settled! :-)
21:06:06 <bd808> git log --format='%aN <%aE>' | sort -f | uniq
21:06:28 <jdlrobson> Is there any reason we distinguish between "Patch contributor" and "Developer" here >
21:06:28 * robla tries that just to see what emerges
21:07:19 <bd808> looks like you may need to add LC_ALL=C for the sort to work
21:07:21 <jdlrobson> Note according to that page yuvi panda is not a developer which seems a strange statement :)
21:12:05 <bd808> I think the difference between developer and contributor is pretty arbitrary at this point
21:12:20 <bd808> it may have once meant something, but it feels stale
21:12:39 <robla>
21:12:41 <bd808> The "old timers" should weigh in on that though I think
21:13:08 <Emufarmers> I think it means I paid off the right person back when access was through SVN :>
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
21:14:11 <robla> yeah, the developer vs contributor distinction was clearly an SVN commit access versus "ask someone to patch for you"
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
21:15:52 <bd808> ah. so developers had "karma" to commit to the trunk?
21:16:11 <robla> bd808: yeah, essentially
21:16:56 <robla> committing to trunk wasn't as big of a deal because trunk only got deployed 2-3 times a year
21:18:16 <legoktm> hello
21:18:20 <robla> #info 14:06:05 <bd808> git log --format='%aN <%aE>' | sort -f | uniq
21:18:31 <robla> legoktm: hi!
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
21:18:47 <Scott_WUaS> Hello Legoktm (and All)!
21:19:46 <bd808> oh hi netsplit. we missed you
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
21:20:59 <robla> bd808: what would the mailmap line look like for Bryan Davis <>?
21:21:40 <bd808> robla: probably something like "<> <>"
21:22:12 <bd808> I think that's the order to say that <> is preferred
21:23:37 <bd808> apparently James_F has already started a .mailmap for us that just needs some updates
21:24:06 <robla> there's a bikeshedding conversation we could go through on this
21:24:14 <bd808> red!
21:24:15 <legoktm> I'd be in favor of just having one giant list in CREDITS
21:24:16 <bd808> blue!
21:24:23 <bd808> legoktm: +1
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?
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
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
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?)
21:26:51 <legoktm> Which is why I'm in favor of just one list in CREDITS
21:27:12 <jdlrobson> I think it simplifies ** a lot ** especially if it's autogenerated
21:27:21 <robla> agreed
21:27:23 <jdlrobson> i see a lot of inconsistencies between and the developers list
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
21:28:28 <jdlrobson> possibly.. but for example I see Florian in patch contributors but commit wise he's on par with Matt Flaschen
21:29:11 <Reedy> Probably just because no one has thought to move him :)
21:29:18 * Reedy goes to fix that
21:29:26 <Krenair> we're counting just core, right?
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?
21:30:17 <jdlrobson> to be clear i think one list makes sense
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
21:30:49 <legoktm> Okay, does anyone disagree with having one list in CREDITS?
21:31:46 <legoktm> Right now myself, jdlrobson, and bd808 have expressed support for one list
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
21:32:09 <robla> legoktm: I don't think there is anyone here who does. add me to the "support" list
21:32:55 <legoktm> Can I #agree that? Or is that too bold?
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
21:33:24 <legoktm> I can poke Tim who's sitting next to me ;)
21:33:37 <robla> please do! :-)
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
21:34:36 <TimStarling> it's fine with me
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?" ?
21:34:55 <bd808> jdlrobson: I think the list should be generated via git. As to when to do that, monthly?
21:35:12 <jdlrobson> bd808: +1
21:35:23 <jdlrobson> I assume we could do that as a deploy script?
21:35:28 <legoktm> bd808: sounds good to me. at minimum, right before a stable release
21:35:30 <jdlrobson> (or per release)
21:35:47 <Reedy> As a pre-branching (for release branching) task makes sense
21:35:47 <legoktm> #agree The "Developers" and "Patch contributors" sections in the CREDITS file should be merged into one list
21:35:49 <bd808> oh! at release cut would be easy I think
21:36:05 <robla> thanks legoktm
21:36:13 <Reedy> No point doing it per WMF branch etc
21:36:13 <jdlrobson> yeh thanks legoktm bd808
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
21:36:34 <jdlrobson> Scott_WUaS: was that a question?
21:37:15 <robla> bd808: that seems like a really good approach
21:37:37 <Scott_WUaS> jdlrobson: yes, it was a question ...
21:38:31 <Scott_WUaS> And similarly what does WMF do now, in lieu of not having such criteria ... to build on?
21:38:43 <legoktm> Scott_WUaS: we just agreed to merge the two lists.
21:38:43 <Scott_WUaS> Or Wikidata?
21:38:55 <Scott_WUaS> Thx
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
21:40:06 <robla> links to
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)
21:40:34 <robla> and of course:
21:41:40 <Scott_WUaS> robla: language by language makes WMF credits for "developers on the cluster" much more complicated, I imagine :)
21:41:55 <robla> it does
21:42:43 <Scott_WUaS> (robla: what are best practices, Scott_WUaS wonders)
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
21:43:26 <legoktm> So I think the part that still needs to be discussed is the implementation and frequency of updating that list?
21:44:10 <bd808> We've got a general suggestion of generating via git-log and adding that as a branch cut step
21:44:30 <bd808> s/branch/release branch/
21:44:56 <robla> legoktm: per-tarball release branch (2 times a year) seems like a reasonable cadence to me
21:45:07 <robla> any objection to that frequency?
21:45:29 <legoktm> sounds good to me
21:45:55 <robla> #agree update 2 times a year; each time a release branch gets cut
21:45:55 <legoktm> and that person would also be responsible for updating the .mailmap or?
21:46:42 <bd808> mailmap tuning would be easiest based off that diff
21:46:44 <robla> I think the implementation is somethign that should probably should have some further discussion
21:47:06 <bd808> but yeah it seems like a fine grained detail
21:47:11 <robla> we might be able to first use a simple mailmap on the mediawiki/core branch, and then iterate from there
21:47:24 <robla> s/core branch/core repo/
21:47:56 <robla> seems like we should strive to move toward a more suitable list for Special:Version off of our big wikis
21:48:02 <bd808> we have a 333 line .mailmap already but it seems to be missing some obvious dups
21:48:34 <robla> I think we all agree that the status quo is lacking
21:49:01 <robla> the bar isn't very high for an improvement. someone could submit a patch that is a manual update of the CREDITS file
21:50:02 <robla> it seems maybe this is the order of operations:
21:50:15 <Reedy> The .mailmap looks very inconsistent
21:50:29 <robla> 1. update the RFC for what we want the minimum-viable product for an update script
21:50:59 <robla> 2. update the CREDITS file manually from a very early version of the script
21:51:30 <robla> 3. discuss the update in Gerrit/Phab/wherever, manually updating for the mistakes that were made in the first run
21:52:03 <robla> 4. do manual updates until someone finds the time to automate it
21:52:20 <robla> does that seem like a good way forward?
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)
21:55:15 <jdlrobson> that sounds good to me
21:55:39 <jdlrobson> I guess my only remaining question is what happens to the existing CREDITS file bundled in core
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
21:56:06 <jdlrobson> if it's not in the repo, then we dont need to worry
21:56:08 <Scott_WUaS> sounds good Rob!
21:56:24 <robla> I think it gets replaced by the first person bold enough to replace it
21:56:54 <robla> as far as the automatic generation, we'll have to make a point of putting in warnings
21:57:22 <robla> ...and probably manually eyeball it each run to ensure we didn't accidentally remove someone who was manually added
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?
21:58:03 <Scott_WUaS> *there
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
21:58:29 <robla> we can continue the conversation in #wikimedia-tech
21:58:33 <Scott_WUaS> Thank you, All!
21:59:04 <robla> next week, we may be talking about T145472
21:59:05 <stashbot> T145472: Surveying Cookie Use -
21:59:17 <robla> #endmeeting

File Metadata

Mime Type
text/plain; charset=utf-8
Storage Engine
Storage Format
Raw Data
Storage Handle
Default Alt Text
ArchCom-RFC-2016W41-irc-E316.txt (12 KB)

Event Timeline