Page MenuHomePhabricator

Define main tasks (epics) for code review in Phabricator
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Related Objects

StatusSubtypeAssignedTask
ResolvedDzahn
ResolvedCmjohnson
ResolvedDzahn
Resolveddemon
Resolveddemon
ResolvedDanny_B
ResolvedPaladox
ResolvedPaladox
ResolvedNemo_bis
Resolveddemon
ResolvedPaladox
ResolvedKrenair
Resolvedmmodell
InvalidNone
DeclinedNone
Resolveddemon
InvalidNone
InvalidNone
ResolvedQgil
DeclinedNone
DuplicateNone
Resolvedgreg
Resolvedgreg

Event Timeline

Qgil claimed this task.
Qgil raised the priority of this task from to High.
Qgil updated the task description. (Show Details)
Qgil changed Security from none to None.
Qgil added subscribers: Aklapper, Qgil, greg and 15 others.
Qgil moved this task from Backlog to Doing on the ECT-October-2014 board.

What do you think about the first draft of an "epic" list? I will continue digging in these two areas:

There was a lot of discussion about them last Spring, and I will go through all those comments again to see what looks like a blocker or something we'd better work on sooner than later.

Qgil lowered the priority of this task from High to Medium.Oct 20 2014, 10:35 PM
Qgil lowered the priority of this task from Medium to Low.Oct 28 2014, 2:24 PM
Qgil removed Qgil as the assignee of this task.Nov 3 2014, 12:53 PM
greg raised the priority of this task from Low to Medium.Dec 2 2015, 12:23 AM
greg updated the task description. (Show Details)
greg moved this task from Tooling to Documentation on the Gerrit-Migration board.

So, I'm still not sure of the usefullness of this. The original intent, I believe, was to get an idea of how 'hard' it was going to be to do this. (iow: "We have 5 epics worth of work, that's 5 x $some_multiple so $some_number_of_months worth of work.") We (RelEng) aren't that sophisticated yet in our forecasting (shame on us, can we get a TPG team member on our team?) and we're plugging ahead (of course, with the RFC (T119908) leading us).

Given 1) the original intent, 2) the current reality of how RelEng works, and 3) the fact that the Gerrit-Migration project is (mostly) well groomed and (mostly) only contains real blockers of the migration... I recommend that this task be closed/resolved.

I will say, while I think this task ran it's course, it was useful and a lot of good work was done to get us to where we are now. Thanks all. :)

In T584#1843538, @greg wrote:

So, I'm still not sure of the usefullness of this. The original intent, I believe, was to get an idea of how 'hard' it was going to be to do this. (iow: "We have 5 epics worth of work, that's 5 x $some_multiple so $some_number_of_months worth of work.") We (RelEng) aren't that sophisticated yet in our forecasting (shame on us, can we get a TPG team member on our team?) and we're plugging ahead (of course, with the RFC (T119908) leading us).

Given 1) the original intent, 2) the current reality of how RelEng works, and 3) the fact that the Gerrit-Migration project is (mostly) well groomed and (mostly) only contains real blockers of the migration... I recommend that this task be closed/resolved.

I will say, while I think this task ran it's course, it was useful and a lot of good work was done to get us to where we are now. Thanks all. :)

The fact that the two things this is meant to block are closed (resolved and duplicate, respectively) is a bad sign…

greg claimed this task.

As such, marking as done. If you're curious about "What needs to happen to get this done?" go to the Gerrit-Migration workboard.

Not that it matters but yes, I agree that the purpose of this task has been superseded by Gerrit-Migration. When this task was created, our brains were still filled with lots of question marks about the Bugzilla migration, several of them affecting a fuzzier Gerrit migration. The purpose was to have a high level overview of the work that would need to be done, well before a team would commit to start working on it.

You don't know how happy I am that the Gerrit migration is progressing, and I have no merit or responsibility on it. ;)