Next steps of the trac-to-maniphest migration?

Tue Jan 24 14:09:07 UTC 2017

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 January 2017 at 10:37, Matthew Pickering <matthewtpickering at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Simon.
>>
>> If you have any example queries that you run often or queries which
>> you have embedded into wikipages then it would be useful to share them
>> so I can investigate.
>
>
> The 8.2.1 status page has queries embedded:
> https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Status/GHC-8.2.1
>
> Personally I do queries like "all open bugs where Component = RuntimeSystem
> ordered by priority".  It looks like we can probably do that with Maniphest.
>
> I couldn't take a look at the interface for creating a ticket because I have
> to create an account, and it says my account is pending approval.
>
> Does Maniphest have a concept of ticket dependencies? i.e. ticket X is
> blocked by Y.

Yes, see for example -
http://ec2-52-214-147-146.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/T7724

>
> Can we have custom fields with Maniphest?  I like the rich metadata we have
> with OS / Architecture / Component / Failure types.  It's true that we don't
> use it consistently, but at least when we do use it there's an obvious and
> standard way to do it.  When I search for RTS bugs I know that at least all
> the bugs I'm seeing are RTS bugs, even if I'm not seeing all the RTS bugs.
> People responsible for particular architectures can keep their metadata up
> to date to make it easier to manage their ticket lists.

There was a long discussion about this on the original thread with
people echoing this sentiment. I am of the opinion that projects would
be a better fit as

1. They integrate better with the rest of phabricator
2. They are not relevant to every ticket. There are tickets about
infrastructure matters for which the concept of OS is irrelevant for
example.

I like to think of projects as structured unstructured metadata.
The structure is that you
can group different project tags together as subprojects of a parent
project but adding projects to a ticket is unstructured.
This is how "architecture" is implemented currently -
http://ec2-52-214-147-146.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/project/view/101/
On trac, keywords are not very useful as they are completely
unstructured and not discoverable. I think projects greatly improve on
this.

I also posted some images about the different work flows of projects,
subprojects and custom fields.

https://phabricator.haskell.org/M3/3/

http://ec2-52-214-147-146.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/M1

>
>> With regards to the last point. This is possible in a more structured
>> way. You can create a dashboard with a single query embedded and then
>> embed this using standard remarkup syntax.
>>
>> For example on a project page, I embedded a query which matched
>> tickets with "PatternSynonyms" and "newcomer".
>>
>>
>> http://ec2-52-214-147-146.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/project/profile/165/
>>
>> You can embed this panel anywhere where remarkup is accepted. For
>> example, in a wiki page -
>> http://ec2-52-214-147-146.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/w/ or
>> tickets http://ec2-52-214-147-146.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/T12548
>
>
> Ok, it's good to know that Phabricator can embed queries, but we're not
> planning to move the wiki, correct?

I am not proposing that but if there is interest it could be
investigated. The migration would be trickier due to the complicated
ways that people use markup in wiki pages.

>
>>
>> It is a bit more heavyweight to setup but much easier to get right due
>> to the structured editing interface which trac doesn't provide for
>> these kinds of queries.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 21 January 2017 at 22:21, Matthew Pickering
>> > <matthewtpickering at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hello devs,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks to everyone so far who has looked at and commented on the
>> >> prototype. It seems that the response is generally positive so I would
>> >> like to drive the process forwards.
>> >>
>> >> In order for that to happen, someone needs to decide whether we as a
>> >> community think it is a good idea. It seems to make sense if those who
>> >> use the tracker most make this decision so I propose that Simon and
>> >> Ben should ultimately be the ones to do this.
>> >>
>> >> Therefore, I propose this timeline
>> >>
>> >> 1. Before 11th Feb (3 weeks from today) we decide whether we want to
>> >> migrate the issue tracker.
>> >> 2. A working group is established who will work through the details of
>> >> the migration with the minimum of a final prototype built from a clone
>> >> of the actual installation.
>> >> 3. Migration would happen before the end of March.
>> >
>> >
>> > Sounds good to me.  I personally have only glanced at it so far, but
>> > I'll
>> > give it some attention.  I'm pretty attached to Trac's ability to do
>> > complex
>> > queries on tickets and the ability to embed ticket queries into wiki
>> > pages,
>> > so the gains would have to be compelling to outweigh the losses for me.
>> > But
>> > I'll give it a closer look.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Simon
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I think Ben summarised the discussions quite well on the wiki page -
>> >> https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Phabricator/Maniphest
>> >>
>> >> And the prototype continues to exist here.
>> >> http://ec2-52-214-147-146.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/
>> >>
>> >> As always, any comments welcome.
>> >>
>> >> Matt
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> ghc-devs mailing list
>> >> ghc-devs at haskell.org
>> >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>> >
>> >
>
>

Hope that is useful.

Matt