Gerrit/Project ownership

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ This page queues individuals' requests to be added to the Gerrit project owner groups for specific Gerrit projects (each of which corresponds to a Git repository). A Gerrit project owner has the power to approve changes for merger into that Gerrit project's master branch, and to veto changes (see +2).

"When/how we'll add, remove people from Gerrit project owner groups" has procedural details. Sumana Harihareswara will regularly look at new requests for project owner membership and contact the existing project owners. If there is consensus from the existing project owners, then we'll approve the candidate. For each new candidate the process shouldn't take more than two weeks, and usually much less. Ownership can be revoked.

If your codebase/extension/tool isn't in Git yet, use this form to create a new Gerrit project: Gerrit/New repositories

To see the current list of Gerrit project owners for a specific Gerrit project, visit https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/admin/groups/.

= Ownership structure = Example: an extension is named foo.
 * The Gerrit group "foo" should usually be an owner of the Gerrit project "foo."
 * Sometimes, meta-groups will be included in the group. This is for people have ownership over multiple extensions, so you can add/remove members in one place.
 * Rights to the group may be inherited from other groups (Look for a "Rights Inherit From:" in the project access.)

Specific example: the project "mediawiki/extensions/DonationInterface" is owned by group "extension-DonationInterface." This group includes the meta-group "fundraising." Also members of the group "mediawiki" has ownership via "Rights Inherit From: "mediawiki/extensions access"

By keeping the naming convention ("extensions/foo" is owned by group "extension-foo"), it'll make the "automatically setup a repo" process much more scriptable when we hit that bridge.

(Note to Gerrit group creators: remember to check the "Make group visible to all registered users." checkbox and leave the group type as "Internal group" and not LDAP.)

= To make a new Project Owner =


 * Create a group
 * Give it ownership of a Project
 * Anyone in that group can now add more owners via https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/admin/projects/ (but we prefer to keep that process public via Git/Gerrit project ownership)
 * Click Groups
 * As long as you are a member of the group, you can edit the group
 * example: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/admin/projects/mediawiki,access

MediaWiki core
We are maintaining a "WMF" branch of mediawiki/core.git. We use submodules for deployed extensions, and can pull from master as regularly as we want for deployments. At the start of the migration to git, the project owners of this branch are going to be the people who have the ability to deploy code to Wikimedia Foundation servers. gerrit will offer a list of the "Gerrit project owners" for this branch, except for the Operations (system administration) group, which is an LDAP group. Every member of the Wikimedia Foundation operations team will also be in the Gerrit project owners group insofar as they have code review rights globally, but in practice will rarely review code. We may add some existing code reviewers to this Gerrit project owners group. Details; you can request to be added.

At the start of the migration, this list of Gerrit project owners for the WMF branch is also the list of Gerrit project owners for the master branch. However, eventually, we will add to the list of Gerrit project owners for master, using as criteria the number and quality of developers' previous commits and code reviews.

Details and procedure for adding and removing people from the Gerrit project owners groups.

MediaWiki has release branches (19 so far) for core, and master (the default branch previously known as "trunk" in SVN). Example: ("heads" is gitweb's term for branches). MediaWiki core and WMF-deployed extensions will be tagging releases just as we did in Subversion, except they'll be Git tags instead of SVN tags. Any other extension will make its own decisions regarding tagging.

MediaWiki extensions that the Wikimedia Foundation deploys
Same procedure as for MediaWiki core, and the same Gerrit project owner groups.

Other MediaWiki extensions
Every extension author can choose between two choices here for non-master branches: the gated-trunk/push-for-review model, and a straight push model. For any given extension, we will honor the wishes of the person/s listed as the main author on the extension's mediawiki.org page.


 * The gated-trunk/push-for-review is the model that we are using for MediaWiki core, as mentioned above. A Gerrit project owners group (plus the above mentioned Gerrit project owners group for MediaWiki core) will be able to "+2" (approve and merge) changes to their extensions.  The extension author(s) will be able to define a Gerrit project owners group and add others to it.


 * The straight push model is similar to how we did things in Subversion; anyone can suggest a change and submit a pull request, and it will automatically be approved and merged.

Master branches must go through Gerrit and cannot be straight push. This is necessary to facilitate a number of Gerrit features, including replication, updating of the extension meta-repository, and ability of Translatewiki to provide localization updates.

We could define groups to make this easier for batches of extensions (e.g. SMW developers). Chad will offer your community a choice. Please let Chad what you would like via Git/New repositories.

Other Gerrit projects
Same procedure as for "other MediaWiki extensions" above.

= Requests =

[ Add a request]

A bunch of new groups
I'd like to have an $extension-trusted group (initially empty and with no rights assigned) for the following extensions: Validator, Maps, SemanticMaps, Push, LiveTranslate, SubPageList, Spark, IncludeWP, Survey, DidYouKnow, Gitweb (once created), DataValues (once created), Diff, SemanticWatchlist, SemanticImageInput and SemanticBundle.

These groups would be owned by their respective $extension-owner group.

This will allow me to manage my extension myself without posting a request here each time someone should get access :) --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * Support. --siebrand (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since these are non-deployed extensions, I think this is fine. But I'd like to get input from Chad before we start introducing new group structures. --Catrope (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't *like* it as proposed since this is very quickly going to explode the number of groups we have. Ideally all extension-$name groups should be owned by an extension-$name-owner (other than deployed exts, perhaps). The reason it's all currently owned by the "Project & Group Creators" was so people could process this page and add new users to their respective groups. What I'd like is either A) A way to manage all groups without giving out admin privs, or B) Multiple owners of groups. The former is probably easier. This all being said, perhaps we can go ahead with this structure for a few non-deployed extensions anyway and see if we really need this page at all for granting access to those. ^demon (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then I suppose we'd be supportive of adding Jeroen as the owner of all those groups? Also, it seems to me that there are a number of them should be in some metagroup fro SMW. Tychay (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Chad, sorry for being obtuse, but when you say "perhaps" is that a go-ahead for me to go ahead and create the "extension-Validator-trusted", "extension-Maps-trusted", etc. Gerrit groups, and when necessary, the "extension-[name]" groups to own the "trusted" groups? Thanks. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeroen, I set up the relevant groups for Validator and I think I set them up how you'd like. Is that right? Tried to ping you in IRC, haven't gotten a response -- let me know if that's the right model and I'll do the rest of the groups. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for setting that group up Sumanah. You made the group owner of itself. If this is an acceptable thing to do, then perhaps there is no point in having such extra groups, as you could just make the extension-name groups own themselves, solving the issue with less work and clutter. Think chad had some reason to not do this though. --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the reason was that it made it impossible for people in the "Project and Group Creators" group to manage any group member. This is being solved in the near future. ^demon[omg plz] 15:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Nischyan branch owner in SemanticMaps
I tried making Nischyan owner of the nischyan branch of SemanticMaps by adding a group he's member of as owner of this branch. I want him to be able to happily merge in stuff without needing approval of someone else. Since this did not work, I tried giving him pretty much all other rights on the branch, but he says he's still not able to approve his own commits. Am I doing something wrong? https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/admin/projects/mediawiki/extensions/SemanticMaps,access
 * -- Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Reviewing commits (Verified+1, CodeReview+2, Submit) needs to be assigned to the appropriate refs/for/* refspace, not the destination ref. Compare and . ^demon (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So it should be refs/for/refs/heads/nischyan? --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes ^demon (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This does not appear to work - can you check the settings to see if they are correct? --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Creation of a repository for my extension, PreloadContent
I am developing a new extension, Extension:PreloadContent and I want to have my code hosted on MediaWiki repos. --Milad Naseri (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please describe this extension in greater detail, or provide a code sample? --ori (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're looking for Git/New_repositories. Bawolff (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

extension-MediaWikiAuth
As the original creator of the extension, I (GreenReaper) request project ownership for extension-MediaWikiAuth. GreenReaper (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, I think. Hopefully you'll have more of an idea what you're doing than I do. *shifty eyes* -— Isarra ༆ 20:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Matma Rex (Bartosz Dziewoński) for mediawiki/core
I'm a pretty new developer (first gerrit patch merged in August last year), but I'm a (Polish) Wikipedia editor since 2007 and active gadget&template writer and an all-around tech guy since about 2009.

My forte is frontend (CSS and JS), and this is reflected in my commits and reviews. We have a huge backlog in this area, and I hope I'll be able to help.

Changes I was a reviewer of &bull; Bugzilla activity

I'm aware I have little experience compared to most of other core maintainers, but I thought, why not? Both positive and negative comments welcome :) Matma Rex (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC) And regarding what MZMcBride wrote above, I'm sure we could use a few more volunteers with core +2 access; naturally such people need to be active and competent, and MatmaRex is both of those. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 00:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note from Sumana here -- I'm notifying our community now and would like to wait a week before checking for consensus, just to give some folks time to look at Matma Rex's commits and reviews. (In my experience it usually takes several days anyway for people to think and put down their thoughts; I just figured I'd actually note it here so people have some kind of expectation regarding timeframe.)  Thanks for your work, Bartosz. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak . Weak because I've had limited opportunities to interact with him, +1 because they've always been very positive. Yuvipanda (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking about nominating you. Bawolff (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Useful insights and active in helping other contributors by giving a first review (thus saving work). But in my opinion still too inexperienced to be reviewing with CR+2 for merge. Krinkle (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * : Ideally nobody should be merging patches without a second opinion. I trust Matma Rex to know what and what not to merge. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * : I think MatmaRex will know how to use it responsibly. -- Krenair (talk &bull; contribs) 16:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * : If bunnies are allowed, why not him? --Nikerabbit (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * per MZMcBride --Waldir (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The skill and commitment is there, but his manner of expressing criticism is scathing and combative and filled with contempt for anything he doesn't like. Maybe in the future, but not now. --Ori.livneh (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I chatted with Bawolff about this on IRC, and he challenged me to provide examples of bad behavior in contexts other than the changes to the account creation interface. I was not able to find anything especially damning, which surprised me. It's possible that a combination of availability bias and feeling upset about recent interactions led me to believe this behavior was more pervasive than it in fact was.
 * I still believe that his behavior in the context of that discussion was sufficiently poor to merit waiting some time before revisiting this request, but as MZMcBride and Jack Phoenix note below, I also lost my cool in the end, and in doing so perhaps I forfeited the right to oppose the request on these particular grounds. So I am rescinding my veto. --Ori.livneh (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what exactly did he do with ACUX that was such poor behaviour? -— Isarra ༆ 05:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying things like "acux team should be slapped" and frantically pinging people on IRC to merge a revert (19:53:28 onwards). --Ori.livneh (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Frantically? He pinged two people, Reedy and chad from what I can see... As for the slapping comment, That is pretty weak, I've pretty sure i've made worse against staff members, Oh and i've pinged more people to get code committed, merged or pushed to the live cluster. Peachey88 (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, generally speaking volunteers have to ping people to get things merged, often several people. Doesn't matter what it is. (That said, staff probably do similar, but perhaps in more organised ways about it since they're generally doing more specific things with specific teams and thus specific people would know about it/be following it and such.) -— Isarra ༆ 17:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I could say the same of a number of people with +2 access, if you know what I mean. I share your concern, but I don't think it should preclude forward progress in development. If you think the skill and commitment are there and there are reasonable safeguards in place, it seems like it would be awfully difficult to oppose. For me, the benefit outweighs the (potential) cost. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know what you mean. If you see a current core committer behaving in a combative way, please call it out. --Ori.livneh (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconding Ori: if there are other people with +2 powers in MediaWiki core who are often expressing themselves in scathing, combative ways, then we should ask these people to please act more collaboratively, and possibly even remove their privileges. I am willing to be the person who conveys complaints to such maintainers and tries to help them improve. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll just leave this, this and this here for you to draw your own conclusions. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 00:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you worry that there is more to my objection than meets the eye, please state your concern explicitly, so that I may address it. --Ori.livneh (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you describe adding (and self-merging) a snarky configuration variable as combative? I think the broader point here is a double standard (which everyone seems to acknowledge): one standard for Wikimedia Foundation staff/contractors and another (much stricter) standard for volunteers. I'm not sure this double standard is sustainable. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * for what it's worth I also support and ask for more civility. OrenB talk contib 04:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * - per MZMcBride. MatmaRex has also demonstrated an unusual impartiality, looking at the code itself and giving feedback based on what it is there rather than judging based on who submitted it - a valuable trait in a friend if you need someone to review your code, and, I would hope, a valuable trait in general when considering someone for core. -— Isarra ༆ 18:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I rarely speak up in these discussions, but I have experience to contribute here. I'd like to see MatmaRex learn to improve how well he negotiates with others. Maintainers ought to be courteous and ought to give negative feedback in clear, but kind ways. His short-tempered comments have decreased others' morale and made it harder to solve problems together, despite the technical knowledge and enthusiasm he brings to MediaWiki. In code review, design discussions, and bug comments, those with +2 power have a special responsibility to see from others' points of view and avoid dismissiveness. I am happy to give more specific criticisms and suggestions upon request; MatmaRex and I have also spoken about these issues in the past. I do thank Bartosz for his work and encourage him to improve his negotiation skills and talk with us again in a few months. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While improved civility is a laudable goal, I have to wonder - is it a realistic one, or even an entirely applicable one in the situation? We have here a diverse community of paid staff and unpaid volunteers, operating on the idea that we can all contribute, but when there are so few volunteers with the ability to review and merge in core, and so few staff willing or even able to take the time to review volunteer submissions, it only makes more poignant the double standard that is apparently being applied to volunteers here. Yes, MatmaRex can be blunt, combative, and at times downright difficult, but the same and worse could be said of many staff members who had to go through no such vetting process for their access (yes, there was a different process, but expecting more of volunteers than of staff here of all places just seems ridiculous when there's a concern about chasing people off). But while some staffers have used their +2 for such when they really oughtn't have, I don't believe MatmaRex would do that - he already displays care with his regular reviews, only giving things a +1 or -1 if he is certain, and how he would use the added rights should be the important thing here, not his temperament, especially as the latter will affect matters regardless of his access. Core ownership, beyond the potential for harm, should not be a big deal - if a developer would be a net benefit to the project with access, he should have it. Do you believe MatmaRex, Bartosz Dziewoński, would not be a net benefit? -— Isarra ༆ 17:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please link to some of these comments you refer to? Peachey88 (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * - per Ori and Sumana. --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you expand on your comment with more detail(s), after all, One the opposes you refer to has been striked. Peachey88 (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Only Wikimedia Foundation staff/contractors have opposed. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But they're not the majority of the WMF staff/contractors who expressed an opinion, anyway, even if such counts happened to be meaningful. --Nemo 17:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I obviously wholeheartedly this request. MatmaRex is a very competent developer who's not afraid to get his hands dirty and fix what others never bothered fixing (the Cologne Blue skin comes to mind, for example). It's also a good thing in my view if someone's willing to say how things really are, without the sugar coating. Sure, MatmaRex is capable of sharp and somewhat spiky opinions that some may not like, but...I've seen a lot worse &mdash; here and elsewhere. I think anyone who's been around for a bit longer has seen such things. I for one welcome harsh code criticism based on facts, as it's the only way to improve code quality.
 * Weak . I have had good and bad interactions with Bartosz, but he's overwhelmingly a force for good, and he's getting much better. More experience interacting with the community, especially if the community supports and welcomes him, will cause him to get even better, even faster. And please, don't read into the fact that WMFers are going one way or another - we speak our minds, and some of us have spoken one way or the other on this one. The fact that volunteers haven't opposed this nomination doesn't necessarily mean anything. --MarkTraceur (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Conditional . I've had good experiences iterating on patch review in gerrit with Bartosz, and I think he could be a valuable team member. I would strongly recommend assigning a mentor -- my impression is that he may need more guidance on how to deal with people when reviewing others' code -- but we really should be doing this for all new folks. I can't promise particular response time myself, but will try to help out. Bonus points if someone is interested in volunteering for this! --brion (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * . He is motivated and seems to be figuring out the ropes of the MW dev community quickly after a bit of a rough start.  He's able to hang on despite valid criticism and improve. -- ☠ MarkAHershberger ☢ (talk) ☣ 20:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak . I agree with Ori and Sumana, but I can see a path for improvement and eventual +2 with Bartosz. I like Brion's idea of mentorship, and I think that could work well. If mentored, and the concerns have been addressed, I don't see any reason we couldn't revisit this and I'd like to support at that time. ^demon[omg plz] 20:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Striking because I can't really decide. Please consider me . ^demon</b><sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz] <i style="font-size:10px;">20:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)</i>
 * From what I can see in his patches; he is mostly a positive force for getting things done. Even if he is a bit brusque in his dealings; I didn't really see egregiousness negativity beyond what is already expressed by other core developers. This is all something we can work on together but not, I feel, something that should stop us from acquiring another seemingly competent reviewer for CSS/JS. Mwalker (WMF) (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There seem to be some accusations of Matmarex being "scathing". However, no evidence has been provided to support this, to the point where Ori has even rescinded his opposition. Furthermore, from what I've looked through in Gerrit of Matmarex's reviews, he seems to be perfectly fine when participating in discussion and has been assisting a lot with CSS/JS components. Considering the level of support he has received so far and the lack of evidence against him, I'm giving my support for this. If somebody is willing to provide evidence otherwise, I'll change my opinion. Parent5446 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My general feeling with Matmarex has been good. Entering the «discussion skills» topic, which is the only rejecting reason, I should note that the “offending review” was given to +2 people. While it is good to keep polite (and the case given doesn't seem too bad, more so for taking place in irc), it is sometimes more important to provide an accurate review. I wouldn't consider acceptable to tell a new contributor "You should be slapped for writing this code doing X", but it could be appropiate as a quick feedback (instead of not providing it at all) to eg. Tim Starling (of course, such bad code would probably end up being some clever trick outsmarting the reviewer, so you would better be damn sure of being right :). Don't misinterpret me, it is important to be nice and have a good feeling amongst developers, but I don't see the above evidence as a blocker for +2. Platonides (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Jack Phoenix for mediawiki-skins
I've written, reverse-engineered and maintain(ed) plenty of skins (including, but most certainly not limited to the Nimbus skin (which is in the mediawiki/skins/ git repository) and several currently unreleased skins, such as Eminence, Hope and many more), and I've also contributed bugfixes to core skin stuff (PHP and CSS&JS parts). In addition to those, I've also tried to document how the scary internals work and I even attempted to rewrite the skin system back in the SVN era. Suffice to say, I believe it's clear that I have a good understanding of how the skin system works and enough experience to have project ownership. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 21:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this needs a vote, but I, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (semi-weak) . You've been quite a prolific contributor, not to mention you've been here for quite a long time - certainly much longer than me. My only concern is it appears you haven't committed anything since the git transition (Possible exception of 559c2a48c which doesn't show up in gerrit), and have only done a very minor amount of reviewing/commenting in gerrit (I found about 4 things you commented on). Nonetheless you're still someone I trust, hence the support. Bawolff (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. ^</b>demon</b><sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz] <i style="font-size:10px;">20:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)</i>
 * Yeah, what they said; he knows his stuff. -— Isarra ༆ 21:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Platonides (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)