Awesome, thanks. Not calling it out for next quarter then explicitly.

I should migrate that here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Release_Engineering_Team/Access_list

This task came from a conversation during a 1:1 with @mmodell about, I believe, CommTech's goal for Q1 to build something on top of Phabricator (T133252? right?).

Removing the goals as a blocker; still refining with people but done with their reviews.

@zeljkofilipin What is left to do here before the "prototype" is considered done?

Removing the q4 project tag for two reasons:

1. This is not needed for the near term future (iow: no repositories planned to migrate in the near term need it)
2. It wasn't actually on our list of goals on the official list: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Release_Engineering_Team/Goals/201516Q4

Low priority since it's only for those links that aren't caught by the redirects (and it's unclear if we should update all of them, they'll need manual review).

@Amire80 :)

per above, adjusting projects.

Does gitblit allow indexing now?

Redirects should take care of most of the issues, and then template updates should take care of most of the rest. There will always be one we can't catch when moving locations. Can you list out high priority locations/templates/etc? Template updates was T108864, is there more to be done there?

I believe this is fixed, yep. Thanks!

In T134492#2319429, @awight wrote:

@AndyRussG Want to adopt the CentralNotice tests?

In D257#5248, @Paladox wrote:

I'm not really sure what the performance implications are. I could lower it to 2000 or 1500 if you like, if you doint like the 2500.

In D257#5247, @mmodell wrote:

Upstream has documentation specifically addressing this issue: https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/article/differential_large_changes/

In D256#5242, @demon wrote:

This just updates the description, not the actual time....

What are the performance implications? Why was it set to 1000 before and how did you come up with 2500? Where does this manifest for the user (where do they see the difference)?

This task is old (relatively, given it was marked as blocking 1.28.0-wmf1), untriaged, and open.

Did another pass, left a XXX regarding the "getting started" documentation question (which one? link to it).

Adding gitblit deprecate, just to track this funky template issue.

@Paladox: this looks like an issue with [[mw:Template:Git file]], did you help edit that with T108864?

In T132173#2357060, @Niharika wrote:

I'd be happy to help with doing this and/or the iegreview repo migration task. I might need a bit of hand-holding though. :)

\o/ ?

2 out of 3 means I'll assign to Antoine ;)

cc'ing Chad

In T136644#2353088, @matmarex wrote:

Your workaround really does not work.

[snip]

I think we should revert 8c937957c0f472d6be952a64da511348ae877889 and e71808f4c4deca416ecd39160d12f2584bfb9d65 in AbuseFilter today and deploy that.

As Krenair said, quick cherry-picks/test changes on Beta Cluster are easy/straight-forward and it's simple to make sure people have the right access.

Our quarterly goal was to get all services migrated this quarter; I know it's a tough thing that means work for others to meet our goal.

@Luke081515 Thanks :) But that's actually an answer to a different question :)

@bd808 what are your must haves for this to progress?

@bd808 what are your must haves for this to progress?

@zeljkofilipin can you add a status summary to this task, please?

(made then both blocked since it'd need reverting in both)

Let's do it.

@Krinkle since this affects wmf.3 and .4 (I presume), I'd rather not rollback to .2 and instead just fix/backport. Reasonable?

@Sethakill can you confirm?

This permission is given by becoming a member of the Repository-Admins group.

Spreadsheet initial pass done.