Jump to content

Architecture meetings/RFC review 2014-03-12

From mediawiki.org

21:00-21:30 UTC, March 12th, at #wikimedia-office connect.

Requests for Comment reviewed

[edit]

We took a quick look at the status of four RFCs and marked some for consolidation.

  1. Configuration (database) RFCs: original, RFC 2, and JSON onwiki . Shall we ask authors to consolidate by a certain date?
  2. URL shortener (and URL Shortener Service, probably to be consolidated). Do we have the implementation details Tim wanted?
  3. Assert. Any particular enthusiasm or next steps here?
  4. Linker refactor. Any initial comments?

Summary and logs

[edit]

Meeting summary

[edit]
  • Assert (sumanah, 21:22:06)


Meeting ended at 21:29:51 UTC.


Action items

[edit]


Action items, by person

[edit]


Full log

[edit]
Meeting logs


21:00:27 <sumanah> #startmeeting RFC review 12 March 2014 Channel is logged and publicly posted (DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTE). https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
21:00:27 <wm-labs-meetbot> Meeting started Wed Mar 12 21:00:27 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is sumanah. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:00:27 <wm-labs-meetbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:00:27 <wm-labs-meetbot> The meeting name has been set to 'rfc_review_12_march_2014_channel_is_logged_and_publicly_posted__do_not_remove_this_note___https___meta_wikimedia_org_wiki_irc_office_hours'
21:00:38 <sumanah> #chair sumanah brion TimStarling
21:00:38 <wm-labs-meetbot> Current chairs: TimStarling brion sumanah
21:00:44 <sumanah> #link: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2014-03-12
21:00:49 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2014-03-12
21:01:01 <sumanah> #info Today we're covering four RfCs in 30 minutes because the discussions can be pretty quick:
21:01:08 <sumanah> Configuration (database) RfCs: original, RFC 2, and JSON onwiki. Shall we ask authors to consolidate by a certain date?
21:01:08 <sumanah> URL shortener (and URL Shortener Service, probably to be consolidated). Do we have the implementation details Tim wanted?
21:01:08 <sumanah> Assert. Any particular enthusiasm or next steps here?
21:01:08 <sumanah> Linker refactor. Any initial comments?
21:01:42 <sumanah> #topic Configuration (database) RfCs | Channel is logged and publicly posted (DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTE). https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
21:01:49 <sumanah> ok, that's overkill :-)
21:02:00 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Configuration_database The 2010 proposal, by Brion Vibber and Chad Horohoe, which we sort of decided to abandon in November
21:02:00 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Configuration_database_2 The 2013 proposal, by Kunal Mehta and Ryan Schmidt
21:02:17 <sumanah> We have talked about these topics in several past discussions:
21:02:22 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/Wikimania_2013#Configuration_database summer 2013
21:02:28 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2013-11-06/Log#Configuration_database November 6, 2013 "current RFC probably abandoned, legoktm to file new RFC"
21:02:37 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2013-11-06/Notes#Configuration_database summary of Nov 6 discussion
21:02:37 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2013-11-20 "ACTION: legoktm and other interested devs to develop requirements list on wiki" from Nov 20 2013
21:02:50 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Architecture_Summit_2014/Configuration January Architecture Summit discussion - "Basic hygiene of taking what's already being used (JSON configuration like EventLogging, Zero, and UploadWizard campaigns) and separating into separate extension or integrating into Core." agreed
21:02:50 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2014-02-05 Feb 5 discussion  - decided "maybe consolidate the 3 potential RFCs into 1, maybe with 3 sections -- interface, backend, frontend"
21:02:50 <sumanah> #link https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/109850/ now needs review
21:02:54 <brion> i like the assert proposal; it's simple, straightforward, and has clear use benefits and not much downside
21:03:11 <sumanah> brion: cool, I'll ask you to repeat that in a few minutes :-)
21:03:27 <brion> :D
21:03:40 <sumanah> ok, so brion & TimStarling I sort of want you to #agree on a few things or tell me if it's a bad idea
21:03:48 <parent5446> It seems the Config RFCs are primarily stuck on https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/109850
21:03:50 <sumanah> #idea Per https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Configuration_database_2#Title_.28currently:_.22RFC.2FConfiguration_database_2.22.29 rename the second proposal to be more specific and less confusing - are we agreed to do this?
21:04:11 <brion> yes +1
21:04:30 <hexmode> yes
21:04:43 * hexmode looks at the commit
21:05:40 <parent5446> Unfortunately the Config class interface is far from being fully thought out, as Daniel Kinzler has pointed out
21:05:54 <sumanah> yeah, it looks like Daniel Kinzler has an open question on https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/109850/ - legoktm do you have any particular thoughts you wanna share?
21:06:11 <TimStarling> I don't think you really need my approval to rename an RFC, but ok
21:06:28 <parent5446> The problem is that there needs to be some sort of routing, i.e., a way to fetch some config variables from one backend and others from another.
21:06:34 <sumanah> TimStarling: approval no, but if you thought it was a bad idea I'd want to know. ok :)
21:06:46 <YuviPanda> sumanah: legoktm might be unavailable writing exams atm (he mentioned midterms 'in a few hours' about an hour or so ago)
21:06:47 <parent5446> But in the current interface the Config class *is* the backend
21:06:55 <sumanah> #agreed Per https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Configuration_database_2#Title_.28currently:_.22RFC.2FConfiguration_database_2.22.29 rename the second proposal to be more specific and less confusing
21:07:18 <sumanah> #idea from the Feb 5 meeting: "maybe consolidate the 3 potential RFCs into 1, maybe with 3 sections -- interface, backend, frontend" - do we still think this is a good idea?
21:07:29 <parent5446> +1
21:07:35 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Json_Config_pages_in_wiki I think - I'm not clear on what the "three RFCs" are otherwise
21:08:16 <Krenair> Yes, IIRC from the architecture summit that was the third option
21:09:02 <sumanah> OK. Should we assign that as an action to somebody?
21:10:25 <sumanah> it sounds like once we do that we can mark https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Configuration_database as abandoned -- unless we want to mark it abandoned anyway right away
21:11:23 <TimStarling> I'll mark it as abandoned
21:11:46 <sumanah> #action TimStarling will mark the 2010 proposal https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Configuration_database as abandoned
21:12:31 <sumanah> it sounds like we don't have particular "yes we ought to do this soooon" on the tripartite thing right now, so I suggest we move on to the next topic
21:13:06 <sumanah> (we only have 30 min total today)
21:13:26 <sumanah> #topic URL shortener | Channel is logged and publicly posted (DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTE). https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
21:13:26 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/URL_shortener
21:13:26 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/URL_shortener#IRC_meeting_2013-09-24 Our RFC meeting from a few months ago
21:13:27 <sumanah> #info In September we had an IRC meeting about this where we agreed that Tim would update the RFC with his implementation suggestion https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/URL_shortener#Tim.27s_implementation_suggestion and then we'd ask the mailing list for more discussion. Tim, would you like to do that, or delegate it maybe to someone?
21:14:19 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/URL_shortener_service_for_Wikimedia One more logistical detail: Are we agreed to consolidate this proposal into the "URL shortener" one?
21:14:44 <sumanah> YuviPanda: you might have opinions on this :-)
21:15:14 <YuviPanda> sumanah: :) I think we definitely should merge them.
21:15:43 <sumanah> cool, YuviPanda are you willing to take that on?
21:16:16 <YuviPanda> sumanah: sadly not atm :( I can help with discussion and maybe final implementation, though. Can't promise to lead it right now
21:16:55 <sumanah> YuviPanda: If I give it a go, can I show you a draft of the merged proposal so you can tell me what I got wrong? :-)
21:17:09 <YuviPanda> sumanah: yes, that I can do! :)
21:17:11 <sumanah> OK!
21:17:36 <sumanah> #action sumanah to consolidate  https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/URL_shortener_service_for_Wikimedia into https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/URL_shortener by March 26 - asking Yuvi for review help
21:17:52 <YuviPanda> sumanah: ty!
21:18:22 <sumanah> TimStarling: if you want, you can delegate the "incorporate Tim's implementation suggestions into the RfC" task to me as well, as long as you're willing to review my work & give me feedback
21:18:31 <TimStarling> I think it's a question for the proposer (white cat)
21:18:43 <TimStarling> (or whatever he calls himself in english now)
21:18:59 <sumanah> ok
21:18:59 <TimStarling> i.e. are his requirements satisfied by the other proposal?
21:19:29 <sumanah> #action sumanah to contact とある白い猫 to check whether proposer's requirements are satisfied by other proposal
21:20:35 <sumanah> TimStarling: ok, that's about the merger of the 2 proposals together. What about the followup from the last meeting, about putting your implementation suggestions into  https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/URL_shortener itself?
21:21:28 <TimStarling> sure, you can do that if you like
21:21:59 <sumanah> #action In September we had an IRC meeting about this where we agreed that Tim would update the RFC with his implementation suggestion https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/URL_shortener#Tim.27s_implementation_suggestion and then we'd ask the mailing list for more discussion. sumanah to do this in March
21:22:05 <sumanah> ok, next topic
21:22:06 <sumanah> #topic Assert | Channel is logged and publicly posted (DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTE). https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
21:22:06 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Assert Daniel Kinzler's proposal, last modified in January
21:22:20 <sumanah> #info <brion> i like the assert proposal; it's simple, straightforward, and has clear use benefits and not much downside
21:22:30 <sumanah> Are other people eager for this?
21:22:50 <parent5446> I mean, it looks like it just needs to be pasted into Gerrit
21:23:11 <parent5446> Looks pretty good as a contract programming implementation for PHP
21:23:13 <sumanah> basically, this is kind of a "yay" that I will paste into the RfC talk page :-) to get Daniel to do so
21:23:36 <brion> :D
21:23:47 <parent5446> Is the RFC owner around? (Duesentrieb)
21:23:51 <sumanah> we can continue discussion at the RfC talk page; I just thought people might have missed this one since it isn't as huge
21:24:01 <sumanah> parent5446: no, I don't see him in channel right now - it's late in Berlin
21:24:06 <sumanah> ok, next thing
21:24:09 <sumanah> #topic Linker refactor | Channel is logged and publicly posted (DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTE). https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
21:24:10 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Linker_refactor Katie Filbert's proposal, last updated in December
21:24:10 <sumanah> Are people eager for this?
21:24:18 <brion> i am :D
21:24:36 <sumanah> it has ZERO comments on the talk page! A little "go for it" would be nice :-)
21:24:38 <brion> oh wait lemme read that one first
21:24:40 <sumanah> hahahahha
21:24:56 <parent5446> This is very closely related to TitleValue
21:25:08 <parent5446> Since TitleValue proposes deprecating linker in favor of a service
21:25:28 <TimStarling> yeah, should be on top of TitleValue
21:25:30 <brion> oh god yes, Linker needs re-refactoring
21:25:54 <parent5446> Actually, reading this RFC, it sounds less Linker-specific and more "get rid of static classes" in general
21:25:55 <TimStarling> this predates the TitleValue implementation, right?
21:26:10 <TimStarling> well, that's part of what TitleValue is doing
21:26:42 <brion> i'm broadly in favor, would have to dive in and do some poking at it to comment more in detail since Linker's last refactor i don't recall what's what
21:26:58 <sumanah> aude: ^
21:27:21 <TimStarling> i.e. TitleValue is getting rid of static methods
21:28:09 <TimStarling> e.g. Title::newFromText() -> $titleParser->parseTitle()
21:28:29 <sumanah> Should the RfC author maybe revise this to clarify the dependency chain with the TitleValue RfC?
21:28:54 <TimStarling> Linker::link() -> $renderer->renderHtmlLink()
21:29:25 <TimStarling> yes, or she can collaborate with Daniel generally
21:29:29 <sumanah> fair
21:29:42 <TimStarling> flow time
21:29:44 <sumanah> #action aude to collaborate with Daniel, figure out Linker refactor thing
21:29:46 <sumanah> #topic next meetings
21:29:46 <sumanah> #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings Upcoming meetings
21:29:46 <sumanah> RFC review 2014-03-19 (IRC) - MVC Framework and structured logging
21:29:46 <sumanah> RFC review 2014-03-26 (also IRC) - allow styling in templates, + 1 more, you can suggest one to cover
21:29:51 <sumanah> #endmeeting
Retrieved from "https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2014-03-12&oldid=926967"