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.

"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 the candidate gets zero vetoes and at least one yes 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.

If your codebase/extension/tool isn't in Gerrit yet, use this form: Git/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.)

= Requests =

[ Add a request]

Santhosh for MediaWiki core ownership
Siebrand suggests Santhosh for MediaWiki core ownership.


 * I think this is a bit early because Santhosh hasn't contributed to MW core very much (11 merged commits, 1 pending, and a handful of reviews of others' code AFAICT), but he's on the right track, and with more activity I could see him getting merge rights in the future. --Catrope (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Jeroen De Dauw for MediaWiki core ownership
And yes, I will only approve stuff of others that I'm qualified to review :) -- Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We went over this in April, and the consensus was to grant +2 for certain extensions but not for core. I still have the same opinion. --Catrope (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I love Jeroen changes, but I would prefer having a safeguard before landing them in production :-) Antoine &#34;hashar&#34; Musso (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Requsting admin for UploadWizard and TimedMediaHandler projects
I only aim to +2 the areas that I am qualified to review. thanks --Mdale (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * just don't abuse it ;-) Tychay (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * --Catrope (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Antoine &#34;hashar&#34; Musso (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Kaldari (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Submit right for everyone
Right now one cannot submit a change to core even when it's been verified and +2'd. This happens when someone +2's and hits the wrong button or +2's before the change has been verified and then forgets about it. Rather silly you can't submit then and have to poke someone with the rights :) --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. There are many reasons why you might +2 something but not be ready to press Submit yet. Looking at Gerrit, I only see 10 changes that are +2 but not submitted...and all of them fall into one of the following 3 categories:
 * Needs a rebase/there's conflicts
 * Has unresolved dependencies
 * Someone has explicitly said "please don't submit this just yet"
 * Submitting a change is a big deal because that's what actually merges the change into the destination branch, so yeah, opening this up to everyone is a bad idea. ^demon (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If there is a conflict or unresolved dependency, you cannot submit anyway. "please don't submit this just yet" should be a -2. So none of these seem like a valid argument against handing out this right. --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And I've yet to see a reason why it should be granted. The only reason you gave is one that simply isn't happening. This is a solution in search of a problem. ^demon (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Chad, there's no good reason to disconnect submit rights from +2 rights. --Catrope (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

+2 for Mark Holmquist on mediawiki/extensions/UploadWizard
I'd like to request +2 rights for Mark Holmquist (MarkTraceur) on mediawiki/extensions/UploadWizard. We're doing a sprint from 8/20 to 8/31 to implement high priority fixes and improvements ahead of Wiki Loves Monuments. Mark has been casually reviewing code across MediaWiki for a couple of months now, and has authored many patches, especially for UW. I think it's time for him to be able to merge code (and live with the consequences :-).--Eloquence (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For selfish reasons, I agree with this idea. I also question whether it's wise for me to want this. Even so, it would be nice to have. Thanks! --MarkTraceur (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. --siebrand (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * +1 --Catrope (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Antoine &#34;hashar&#34; Musso (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * +1 Kaldari (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Bawolff for mediawiki/extensions/intersection
I'd like merge rights for intersection. I've been effectively the maintainer of that extension for the last 3 years (not that I've done very much to it) [obviously I wouldn't merge my own code]. Bawolff (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * +1 --Catrope (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * +1 Can't see any reason why not. ^demon (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Antoine &#34;hashar&#34; Musso (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)