[10:50:11] is StructuredDiscussions enabled anywhere in the beta cluster? need to test a thing [14:55:57] Hi! Anyone that could fulfill this quota request T259789? [14:55:58] T259789: Request increased quota for tool-deno Toolforge tool - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T259789 [15:11:32] iridescence: #wikimedia-cloud [15:12:15] Whoops, my bad. [15:12:34] heh [16:50:22] [[Tech]]; The Discoverer; /* CSS load on gomwiktionary main page */ new section; https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=20361337&oldid=20357686&rcid=16083694 [16:51:26] [[Tech]]; The Discoverer; /* CSS load on gomwiktionary main page */ signing; https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=20361348&oldid=20361337&rcid=16083709 [17:09:36] [[Tech]]; The Discoverer; /* CSS load on gomwiktionary main page */; https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=20361458&oldid=20361348&rcid=16083929 [17:24:49] [[Tech]]; Tacsipacsi; /* CSS load cost on gomwiktionary main page */ Reply; https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=20361524&oldid=20361458&rcid=16084096 [19:18:59] hey, just wondering if anyone has had a chance to look at this? https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T260211 [19:19:06] haven't gotten any replies/comments yet [19:22:25] ningu: just a very generic answer but ... you have something that seems to work, you like the method. just do it and be bold. [19:22:36] I already submitted a patch [19:24:06] hopefully people will comment/review it soon, I guess [19:24:25] i see it, yea unfortunately i don't have ideas on the "how to get reviews for MW extensions code" part of the issue [19:24:30] :) [19:24:33] maybe #mediawiki ? [19:25:03] Tpt reviewed my previous patch to ProofreadPage [19:25:05] maybe people are just busy [19:25:36] some filter gerrit email [19:32:15] I think Xover works on ProofreadPage too [19:32:38] and samwilson a bit [19:32:52] it's an odd corner of the codebase, since it's pretty much just for wikisource :) [19:33:13] I also have a core patch pending which I'd like to get in [19:33:24] ningu: yea, there are just not that many people overall [19:35:28] in theory i really want this to work in gerrit. the whole "having to ping in other places" seems so suboptimal when we have a tool for it. in practice i think you will get noticed if you do ask and link it on a mailing list. but i also don't want to be the one who both recommends it and then says "does not scale to use the list" ;p [19:36:28] I haven't needed to use lists so far [19:36:35] within gerrit has kinda worked, it's just slow [19:36:42] and I have time constraints which makes it a bit harder [19:36:44] because it really wouldn't if we all did it for all reviews. so there isn't an easy solution. can only appeal to people to try better filters for gerrit mail and use the reviewer-bot and add themselves to more stuff [19:37:03] ok, glad to hear it at least kinda works [19:37:43] it's a bit random, I don't quite understand. because I don't know what everyone is busy with [19:39:25] volunteers volunteer [19:40:09] the core patch is https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/core/+/618617 [19:42:41] one thing I'm a little confused about is phab vs gerrit. I'm more used to the github model where discussion and pull requests are in the same palce [19:42:44] place* [19:42:54] and I'm not sure if every patchset really need a phab ticket [19:43:32] define "same place" [19:44:15] ningu: more like every ticket needs a patchset (usually) [19:44:29] i wanna say the ticket would normally be first [19:48:23] Nemo_bis: github issues and pull requests use the same numbering scheme iirc [19:48:53] and you comment on the same site in the same way [19:48:59] gerrit and phabricator both use 6-digit numbers at the moment :P [19:49:03] haha [19:49:20] Nemo_bis: yeah but what I mean is, the first issue will be #1, then the next pull request will be #2, then next issue will be #3... [19:49:29] you can use gerrit for discussion :p [19:49:57] then why bother with phab? [19:50:04] this is my point, github does both on one platform [19:50:20] so I find the split a bit hard to navigate [19:50:30] I don't get the new 'strategy' to migrate to GitLab but remain with Phab [19:50:39] I'd rather stick with what we have [19:50:48] hauskatze: so just gerrit going to gitlab? [19:51:02] the current system has worked fine for me so far, I find it a bit confusing, but it does work :P [19:51:06] it'd be like using GitHub just for code but not for issues [19:51:20] I am just giving feedback on my experience [19:51:22] ningu: phab is more powerful. like you can have subtasks that relate to each other, attachments, include pastebins etc.. but yea [19:51:28] mutante: yes, that's true [19:51:35] If Differential was better... [19:51:42] hauskatze: +1, we will most likely end up with 3 systems soon [19:51:45] but Phab CLI is weird [19:51:48] mutante: and also each github repo has its own set of issues, whereas on phab you tag things [19:51:55] so for bigger stuff I can see how it makes sense [19:52:08] and Differential not having UI buttons to merge, etc. It's not self-explaining [19:52:12] phab seems better than jira for larger scale stuff ;) [19:52:30] not that jira is free anyway [19:52:56] hauskatze: never used the cli [19:52:59] ningu: i have often tickets where to resolve them i have to make multiple patches in more than 1 repo. so "each repo has their own tickets" would not work that well [19:53:06] mutante: yeah I can see that [19:53:09] common example for SRE is puppet and DNS [19:55:56] so I think for me the annoyance is not in scaling up by scaling down. when I have a 5 line patch I need to create 2 things [19:56:14] but*