[17:22:33] TrevorParscal: thanks for sharing that video yesterday! good stuff [17:23:10] TrevorParscal: though I'm reticent to follow the suggestion I switch my fonts into ComicSans for better cognition [17:29:21] * marktraceur surmises that perhaps awjr is in the wrong channel [17:30:02] is this not woodshop class? [18:48:43] I'm going to take meetbot offline for a few minutes while I clean up some log files that it has open on Tool Labs. [20:47:40] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/E316 coming up in 12 minutes [21:00:22] #startmeeting RFC meeting (E316) [21:00:22] Meeting started Wed Oct 12 21:00:22 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is robla. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. [21:00:22] Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. [21:00:22] The meeting name has been set to 'rfc_meeting__e316_' [21:00:36] #topic RFC: CREDITS file (T139300) | Channel is logged and publicly posted (DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTE) |​ Logs: https://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/ [21:00:36] T139300: Create formal process for CREDITS files - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T139300 [21:00:49] hi folks [21:03:01] we had a conversation that jdlrobson started about the CREDITS file that was going strong a while back on wikitech-l, but tapered off [21:04:25] he asked about the signifcance of this: "We would like to recognize the following persons for their contribution to MediaWiki." [21:05:08] is there any reason we shouldn't go through and get everyone that contributed a few lines of code? [21:05:34] nope. {{done}} [21:06:04] settled! :-) [21:06:06] git log --format='%aN <%aE>' | sort -f | uniq [21:06:28] Is there any reason we distinguish between "Patch contributor" and "Developer" here > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version/Credits [21:06:29] * robla tries that just to see what emerges [21:07:19] looks like you may need to add LC_ALL=C for the sort to work [21:07:21] Note according to that page yuvi panda is not a developer which seems a strange statement :) [21:08:07] srsly [21:08:10] We would probably also want to add a .mailmap file to de-dup things for changes of email address, etc [21:09:04] the mw-vagrant and operations/puppet repos have .mailmaps that could be used as an example starting point [21:10:18] * robla hasn't futzed with mailmap files in many, many years, and admits to needing to look up mailmap on the interwebs [21:11:05] it pretty much lets you map emailA -> emailB and set a consistent full name + email for each contributor [21:11:30] because things can look goofy over time and across git clients based on local settings [21:12:05] I think the difference between developer and contributor is pretty arbitrary at this point [21:12:20] it may have once meant something, but it feels stale [21:12:31] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/diffusion/MWVA/browse/master/.mailmap [21:12:41] The "old timers" should weigh in on that though I think [21:13:08] I think it means I paid off the right person back when access was through SVN :> [21:13:54] legoktm moved my entry from one list to the other. It made me feel good but otherwise did not change my life [21:14:11] yeah, the developer vs contributor distinction was clearly an SVN commit access versus "ask someone to patch for you" [21:15:10] back in ye olden days of SVN and post-commit review. Post-commit review made being a "developer" a much bigger deal [21:15:52] ah. so developers had "karma" to commit to the trunk? [21:16:11] bd808: yeah, essentially [21:16:56] committing to trunk wasn't as big of a deal because trunk only got deployed 2-3 times a year [21:18:16] hello [21:18:20] #info 14:06:05  git log --format='%aN <%aE>' | sort -f | uniq [21:18:31] legoktm: hi! [21:18:40] so the hard part of implementing this change will be making the mailmap file. There are 643 lines right now but many are obvious dupes [21:18:47] Hello Legoktm (and All)! [21:19:46] oh hi netsplit. we missed you [21:20:10] I could see making a distinction for people with +2 ("Developers") and then other contributors as we want to recognize those people more [21:20:59] bd808: what would the mailmap line look like for Bryan Davis ? [21:21:40] robla: probably something like " " [21:22:12] I think that's the order to say that is preferred [21:23:37] apparently James_F has already started a .mailmap for us that just needs some updates [21:24:06] there's a bikeshedding conversation we could go through on this [21:24:14] red! [21:24:15] I'd be in favor of just having one giant list in CREDITS [21:24:16] blue! [21:24:23] legoktm: +1 [21:24:27] legoktm: what would be the criteria? Right now we have no criteria which makes that hard. If someone asks to be moved to "Developers" how do we assess that? [21:25:11] But I'd like to retain the hardcoded list at the top of Special:Version for people who have made long term/lasting contributions to MW [21:25:18] there's a bikeshedding conversation we could go through on this. seems sensible to have one line per contributor rather than unique email [21:26:20] jdlrobson: well if there are two lists, I think the only reasonable distinction is either LOC or whether they have +2 or not. But the latter devalues SVN commiters (or we assume everyone with SVN access == +2?) [21:26:51] Which is why I'm in favor of just one list in CREDITS [21:27:12] I think it simplifies ** a lot ** especially if it's autogenerated [21:27:21] agreed [21:27:23] i see a lot of inconsistencies between https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/graphs/contributors and the developers list [21:27:46] jdlrobson: well, github's list is probably more wrong because it requires you to have a github account, and associate your commit email with github [21:28:28] possibly.. but for example I see Florian in patch contributors but commit wise he's on par with Matt Flaschen [21:29:11] Probably just because no one has thought to move him :) [21:29:18] * Reedy goes to fix that [21:29:26] we're counting just core, right? [21:29:32] jdlrobson: I'm confused, I've said twice now that we should just merge the two lists into one. Do you want to keep them separate? [21:30:17] to be clear i think one list makes sense [21:30:46] Krenair: yeah, what we're talking about now really only covers core, but you're right, there's also another big complicated conv about libraries and extensions [21:30:49] Okay, does anyone disagree with having one list in CREDITS? [21:31:46] Right now myself, jdlrobson, and bd808 have expressed support for one list [21:31:58] Well it depends how that list is made. If it's hand curated we still have some of the same problems... but definitely one list is better than 2 [21:32:09] legoktm: I don't think there is anyone here who does. add me to the "support" list [21:32:51] Can I #agree that? Or is that too bold? [21:33:03] we didn't really have an ArchCom quorum for the earlier planning meeting, so we probably don't have the usual suspects here, either [21:33:24] I can poke Tim who's sitting next to me ;) [21:33:37] please do! :-) [21:34:20] I'm inclined to say #agree on this, even if it's just the handful of us active in this conversation [21:34:36] it's fine with me [21:34:47] jdlrobson: How to structure this here to scale, depending on WMF and Wikidata's plans? ... "legoktm: what would be the criteria? Right now we have no criteria which makes that hard. If someone asks to be moved to "Developers" how do we assess that?" ? [21:34:55] jdlrobson: I think the list should be generated via git. As to when to do that, monthly? [21:35:12] bd808: +1 [21:35:23] I assume we could do that as a deploy script? [21:35:28] bd808: sounds good to me. at minimum, right before a stable release [21:35:30] (or per release) [21:35:47] As a pre-branching (for release branching) task makes sense [21:35:47] #agree The "Developers" and "Patch contributors" sections in the CREDITS file should be merged into one list [21:35:49] oh! at release cut would be easy I think [21:36:05] thanks legoktm [21:36:13] No point doing it per WMF branch etc [21:36:13] yeh thanks legoktm bd808 [21:36:28] we could just get the `git log --format='%aN <%aE>' | LC_ALL='C' sort -f | uniq` bit added to whatever magic script is used by releng [21:36:34] Scott_WUaS: was that a question? [21:37:15] bd808: that seems like a really good approach [21:37:37] jdlrobson: yes, it was a question ... [21:38:31] And similarly what does WMF do now, in lieu of not having such criteria ... to build on? [21:38:43] Scott_WUaS: we just agreed to merge the two lists. [21:38:43] Or Wikidata? [21:38:55] Thx [21:39:01] Scott_WUaS: I think it depends on the scope of the CREDITS file. For the mediawiki/core repo, that seems reasonably clearly scoped to just that. but yeah, in terms of "developers on the cluster", it's harder [21:40:06] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version/Credits [21:40:15] robla: thx ... (Curious how other software organizations do this with teams or "developers on the cluster" ... a Google, an IBM et al .. thx) [21:40:34] and of course: https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:MediaWiki/Credits [21:41:40] robla: language by language makes WMF credits for "developers on the cluster" much more complicated, I imagine :) [21:41:55] it does [21:42:43] (robla: what are best practices, Scott_WUaS wonders) [21:42:53] btw: we're going to have end this meeting 5 min early to make sure we get a log before the Freenode maintenance happens [21:43:26] So I think the part that still needs to be discussed is the implementation and frequency of updating that list? [21:44:10] We've got a general suggestion of generating via git-log and adding that as a branch cut step [21:44:29] s/branch/release branch/ [21:44:56] legoktm: per-tarball release branch (2 times a year) seems like a reasonable cadence to me [21:45:07] any objection to that frequency? [21:45:28] sounds good to me [21:45:52] #agree update 2 times a year; each time a release branch gets cut [21:45:55] and that person would also be responsible for updating the .mailmap or? [21:46:42] mailmap tuning would be easiest based off that diff [21:46:44] I think the implementation is somethign that should probably should have some further discussion [21:47:06] but yeah it seems like a fine grained detail [21:47:11] we might be able to first use a simple mailmap on the mediawiki/core branch, and then iterate from there [21:47:24] s/core branch/core repo/ [21:47:56] seems like we should strive to move toward a more suitable list for Special:Version off of our big wikis [21:48:02] we have a 333 line .mailmap already but it seems to be missing some obvious dups [21:48:34] I think we all agree that the status quo is lacking [21:49:00] ...so the bar isn't very high for an improvement. someone could submit a patch that is a manual update of the CREDITS file [21:50:02] it seems maybe this is the order of operations: [21:50:15] The .mailmap looks very inconsistent [21:50:29] 1. update the RFC for what we want the minimum-viable product for an update script [21:50:59] 2. update the CREDITS file manually from a very early version of the script [21:51:30] 3. discuss the update in Gerrit/Phab/wherever, manually updating for the mistakes that were made in the first run [21:52:03] 4. do manual updates until someone finds the time to automate it [21:52:20] does that seem like a good way forward? [21:54:24] jdlrobson: I guess I'll ask you as the author: does that seem like a sensible path forward (possibly handing off the RFC to someone else to follow through on) [21:55:15] that sounds good to me [21:55:39] I guess my only remaining question is what happens to the existing CREDITS file bundled in core [21:55:57] if that stays in the same repo we should be clear that people shouldnt add their names there and that its automatically generated [21:56:06] if it's not in the repo, then we dont need to worry [21:56:08] sounds good Rob! [21:56:24] I think it gets replaced by the first person bold enough to replace it [21:56:50] as far as the automatic generation, we'll have to make a point of putting in warnings [21:57:22] ...and probably manually eyeball it each run to ensure we didn't accidentally remove someone who was manually added [21:57:33] (robla: this may be a bag of worms, but what relationship is their between crediting and compensation - and are these CREDITS for both volunteers as well as staff? [21:58:03] *there [21:58:15] anyway...we're about to lose access to Freenode, I think, so I'm going to end the meeting in 30 seconds [21:58:29] we can continue the conversation in #wikimedia-tech [21:58:33] Thank you, All! [21:59:04] next week, we may be talking about T145472 [21:59:05] T145472: Surveying Cookie Use - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T145472 [21:59:17] #endmeeting [21:59:17] Meeting ended Wed Oct 12 21:59:17 2016 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) [21:59:18] Minutes: https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2016/wikimedia-office.2016-10-12-21.00.html [21:59:18] Minutes (text): https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2016/wikimedia-office.2016-10-12-21.00.txt [21:59:18] Minutes (wiki): https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2016/wikimedia-office.2016-10-12-21.00.wiki [21:59:18] Log: https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2016/wikimedia-office.2016-10-12-21.00.log.html