Trac to Phabricator (Maniphest) migration prototype
Manuel M T Chakravarty
chak at justtesting.org
Thu Dec 22 06:24:59 UTC 2016
This looks good!
> Am 21.12.2016 um 21:12 schrieb Matthew Pickering <matthewtpickering at gmail.com>:
> Dear devs,
> I have completed writing a migration which moves tickets from trac to
> phabricator. The conversion is essentially lossless. The trac
> transaction history is replayed which means all events are transferred
> with their original authors and timestamps. I welcome comments on the
> work I have done so far, especially bugs as I have definitely not
> looked at all 12000 tickets.
> All the user accounts are automatically generated. If you want to see
> the tracker from your perspective then send me an email or ping me on
> IRC and I can set the password of the relevant account.
> NOTE: This is not a decision, the existence of this prototype is to
> show that the migration is feasible in a satisfactory way and to
> remove hypothetical arguments from the discussion.
> I must also thank Dan Palmer and Herbert who helped me along the way.
> Dan was responsible for the first implementation and setting up much
> of the infrastructure at the Haskell Exchange hackathon in October. We
> extensively used the API bindings which Herbert had been working on.
> Further information below!
> Why this change? The main argument is consolidation. Having many
> different services is confusing for new and old contributors.
> Phabricator has proved effective as a code review tool. It is modern
> and actively developed with a powerful feature set which we currently
> only use a small fraction of.
> Trac is showing signs of its age. It is old and slow, users regularly
> lose comments through accidently refreshing their browser. Further to
> this, the integration with other services is quite poor. Commits do
> not close tickets which mention them and the only link to commits is a
> comment. Querying the tickets is also quite difficult, I usually
> resort to using google search or my emails to find the relevant
> Why is Phabricator better?
> Through learning more about Phabricator, there are many small things
> that I think it does better which will improve the usability of the
> issue tracker. I will list a few but I urge you to try it out.
> * Commits which mention ticket numbers are currently posted as trac
> comments. There is better integration in phabricator as linking to
> commits has first-class support.
> * Links with differentials are also more direct than the current
> custom field which means you must update two places when posting a
> * Fields are verified so that mispelling user names is not possible
> (see #12623 where Ben mispelled his name for example)
> * This is also true for projects and other fields. Inspecting these
> fields on trac you will find that the formatting on each ticket is
> often quite different.
> * Keywords are much more useful as the set of used keywords is discoverable.
> * Related tickets are much more substantial as the status of related
> tickets is reflected to parent ticket.
> Keywords are implemented as projects. A project is a combination of a
> tag which can be used with any Phabricator object, a workboard to
> organise tasks and a group of people who care about the topic. Not all
> keywords are migrated. Only keywords with at least 5 tickets were
> added to avoid lots of useless projects. The state of keywords is
> still a bit unsatisfactory but I wanted to take this chance to clean
> them up.
> Custom fields such as architecture and OS are replaced by *projects*
> just like keywords. This has the same advantage as other projects.
> Users can be subscribed to projects and receive emails when new
> tickets are tagged with a project. The large majority of tickets have
> very little additional metadata set. I also implemented these as
> custom fields but found the the result to be less satisfactory.
> Some users who have trac accounts do not have phab accounts.
> Fortunately it is easy to create new user accounts for these users
> which have empty passwords which can be recovered by the appropriate
> email address. This means tickets can be properly attributed in the
> The ticket numbers are maintained. I still advocate moving the
> infrastructure tickets in order to maintain this mapping. Especially
> as there has been little activity in thr the last year.
> Tickets are linked to the relevant commits, differentials and other
> tickets. There are 3000 dummy differentials which are used to test
> that the linking works correctly. Of course with real data, the proper
> differential would be
> There are a couple of issues currently with the migration. There are a
> few issues in the parser which converts trac markup to remarkup. Most
> comments have very simple with just paragraphs and code blocks but
> complex items like lists are sometimes parsed incorrectly. Definition
> lists are converted to tables as there are no equivalent in remarkup.
> Trac ticket links are converted to phab ticket links.
> The ideal time to migrate is before the end of January The busiest
> time for the issue tracker is before and after a new major release.
> With 8.2 planned for around April this gives the transition a few
> months to settle. We can close the trac issue tracker and continue to
> serve it or preferably redirect users to the new ticket. I don't plan
> to migrate the wiki at this stage as I do not feel that the parser is
> robust enough although there are now few other technical challenges
> blocking this direction.
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
More information about the ghc-devs