Moving bugs to Phabricator

[Jasper St. Pierre]

The current major issue with Phabricator for me currently is that it
doesn't support patch-based code review, unless this has changed in
the meantime: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20756320/how-to-prevent-phabricator-from-eating-my-commit-history

( The linked article has since moved to
https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabflavor/article/recommendations_on_revision_control/
, but it still contains mostly the same text. )

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> As previously discussed with a few people (when it was much more in
> its infancy than now), I'd like to move our bug tracking from Bugzilla
> to Phabricator.
>
> There's a few reasons behind this. Phabricator is actually a pretty
> decent suite of utilities, including repository browsing and code
> review (Gerrit-style, including iterative revisions of patches,
> line-by-line comments, etc), and having our bugs in that would allow
> us better integration between the two. For instance, putting
> 'Maniphest Tasks: T1234' in a commit message when uploading a diff
> automatically links the commit and the bug, and similarly it also gets
> closed when pushing commits.
>
> We can push this out further as well, including automatically
> triggering CI from commits sent for review. I actually had this
> working last year (running distcheck for every commit), but am in the
> middle of rejigging my setup for a few things and haven't yet fixed
> that to happen again yet.
>
> Personally, just the improved UI (BZ is a nightmare) is enough for me,
> but in terms of what we can do with it in future, I think it's got a
> much better model than Bugzilla. The data store in Phabricator is very
> important to their upstream, and is sensible and extensible. Whilst
>
> We've had an instance at fd.o for a while, which has been used to
> varying degrees by projects such as PiTiVi, GStreamer, et al. Also, we
> use it internally for everything at Collabora, so the tree we maintain
> for use there also gets pushed to fd.o.
>
> In terms of what this would mean mechanically, we already have a
> fairly mature suite of scripts which have been used to do imports for
> quite a few projects. Using this would mirror all the Bugzilla bugs to
> Phabricator, add a link from the existing Bugzilla bugs to their
> replacements on Phabricator, and then redirect all new bug-filers to
> Phabricator. The import process also creates accounts for everyone, so
> once they'd recovered their passwords, so no data will be lost. It
> also ports attachments over.
>
> Beyond that, we can start using code review for it as and when people
> feel comfortable, particularly using git-phab, which submits patchsets
> to Phabricator for review. I'm probably most excited about getting
> review on there, though also fairly cautious; while Bugzilla is just
> trading one antiquated web tool which no-one uses for a nice modern
> one which equally few people will probably look at, review is a bigger
> part. Nonetheless, having things like concrete review approval status,
> line-by-line review separated from wider/conceptual review,
> at-a-glance review status, etc, I think is valuable enough that I
> think it's worth shifting things over at some point.
>
> Anyone have any thoughts/opinions/fears/encouragement?
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> wayland-devel mailing list
> wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel



-- 
  Jasper