Architecture meetings/RFC review 2014-03-12

21:00-21:30 UTC, March 12th, at.

Requests for Comment reviewed
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?

Meeting summary

 * LINK: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2014-03-12 (sumanah, 21:00:49)
 * Today we're covering four RfCs in 30 minutes because the discussions can be pretty quick: (sumanah, 21:01:01)
 * Configuration (database) RfCs (sumanah, 21:01:42)
 * 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 (sumanah, 21:02:00)
 * LINK: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Configuration_database_2 The 2013 proposal, by Kunal Mehta and Ryan Schmidt (sumanah, 21:02:00)
 * LINK: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/Wikimania_2013#Configuration_database summer 2013 (sumanah, 21:02:22)
 * 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" (sumanah, 21:02:28)
 * LINK: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2013-11-06/Notes#Configuration_database summary of Nov 6 discussion (sumanah, 21:02:37)
 * 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 (sumanah, 21:02:37)
 * 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 (sumanah, 21:02:50)
 * 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"  (sumanah, 21:02:50)
 * LINK: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/109850/ now needs review (sumanah, 21:02:50)
 * 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? (sumanah, 21:03:50)
 * 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 (sumanah, 21:06:55)
 * 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? (sumanah, 21:07:18)
 * 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 (sumanah, 21:07:35)
 * ACTION: TimStarling will mark the 2010 proposal https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Configuration_database as abandoned (sumanah, 21:11:46)


 * URL shortener (sumanah, 21:13:26)
 * LINK: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/URL_shortener (sumanah, 21:13:26)
 * 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 (sumanah, 21:13:26)
 * 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? (sumanah, 21:14:19)
 * 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  (sumanah, 21:17:36)
 * ACTION: sumanah to contact とある白い猫 to check whether proposer's requirements are satisfied by other proposal (sumanah, 21:19:29)
 * 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 (sumanah, 21:21:59)


 * Assert (sumanah, 21:22:06)
 * LINK: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Assert Daniel Kinzler's proposal, last modified in January (sumanah, 21:22:06)
 * i like the assert proposal; it's simple, straightforward, and has clear use benefits and not much downside (sumanah, 21:22:20)


 * Linker refactor (sumanah, 21:24:09)
 * LINK: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Linker_refactor Katie Filbert's proposal, last updated in December (sumanah, 21:24:10)
 * ACTION: aude to collaborate with Daniel, figure out Linker refactor thing (as it relates to TitleValue) (sumanah, 21:29:44)


 * next meetings (sumanah, 21:29:46)
 * LINK: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings Upcoming meetings (sumanah, 21:29:46)

Meeting ended at 21:29:51 UTC.

Action items

 * TimStarling will mark the 2010 proposal https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Configuration_database as abandoned
 * 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
 * sumanah to contact とある白い猫 to check whether proposer's requirements are satisfied by other proposal
 * 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
 * aude to collaborate with Daniel, figure out Linker refactor thing

Action items, by person

 * sumanah
 * 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
 * sumanah to contact とある白い猫 to check whether proposer's requirements are satisfied by other proposal
 * 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
 * TimStarling
 * TimStarling will mark the 2010 proposal https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Configuration_database as abandoned

Full log
21:00:27 #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  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  Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 21:00:27  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 #chair sumanah brion TimStarling 21:00:38  Current chairs: TimStarling brion sumanah 21:00:44 #link: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2014-03-12 21:00:49 #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2014-03-12 21:01:01 #info Today we're covering four RfCs in 30 minutes because the discussions can be pretty quick: 21:01:08 Configuration (database) RfCs: original, RFC 2, and JSON onwiki. Shall we ask authors to consolidate by a certain date? 21:01:08 URL shortener (and URL Shortener Service, probably to be consolidated). Do we have the implementation details Tim wanted? 21:01:08 Assert. Any particular enthusiasm or next steps here? 21:01:08 Linker refactor. Any initial comments? 21:01:42 #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 ok, that's overkill :-) 21:02:00 #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 #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Configuration_database_2 The 2013 proposal, by Kunal Mehta and Ryan Schmidt 21:02:17 We have talked about these topics in several past discussions: 21:02:22 #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/Wikimania_2013#Configuration_database summer 2013 21:02:28 #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 #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2013-11-06/Notes#Configuration_database summary of Nov 6 discussion 21:02:37 #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 #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 #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 #link https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/109850/ now needs review 21:02:54 i like the assert proposal; it's simple, straightforward, and has clear use benefits and not much downside 21:03:11 brion: cool, I'll ask you to repeat that in a few minutes :-) 21:03:27 :D 21:03:40 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 It seems the Config RFCs are primarily stuck on https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/109850 21:03:50 #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 yes +1 21:04:30 yes 21:04:43 * hexmode looks at the commit 21:05:40 Unfortunately the Config class interface is far from being fully thought out, as Daniel Kinzler has pointed out 21:05:54 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  I don't think you really need my approval to rename an RFC, but ok 21:06:28 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 TimStarling: approval no, but if you thought it was a bad idea I'd want to know. ok :) 21:06:46  sumanah: legoktm might be unavailable writing exams atm (he mentioned midterms 'in a few hours' about an hour or so ago) 21:06:47 But in the current interface the Config class *is* the backend 21:06:55 #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 #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 +1 21:07:35 #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  Yes, IIRC from the architecture summit that was the third option 21:09:02 OK. Should we assign that as an action to somebody? 21:10:25 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  I'll mark it as abandoned 21:11:46 #action TimStarling will mark the 2010 proposal https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Configuration_database as abandoned 21:12:31 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 (we only have 30 min total today) 21:13:26 #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 #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/URL_shortener 21:13:26 #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 #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 #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 YuviPanda: you might have opinions on this :-) 21:15:14  sumanah: :) I think we definitely should merge them. 21:15:43 cool, YuviPanda are you willing to take that on? 21:16:16  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 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  sumanah: yes, that I can do! :) 21:17:11 OK! 21:17:36 #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  sumanah: ty! 21:18:22 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  I think it's a question for the proposer (white cat) 21:18:43  (or whatever he calls himself in english now) 21:18:59 ok 21:18:59  i.e. are his requirements satisfied by the other proposal? 21:19:29 #action sumanah to contact とある白い猫 to check whether proposer's requirements are satisfied by other proposal 21:20:35 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  sure, you can do that if you like 21:21:59 #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 ok, next topic 21:22:06 #topic Assert | Channel is logged and publicly posted (DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTE). https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours 21:22:06 #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Assert Daniel Kinzler's proposal, last modified in January 21:22:20 #info i like the assert proposal; it's simple, straightforward, and has clear use benefits and not much downside 21:22:30 Are other people eager for this? 21:22:50 I mean, it looks like it just needs to be pasted into Gerrit 21:23:11 Looks pretty good as a contract programming implementation for PHP 21:23:13 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 :D 21:23:47 Is the RFC owner around? (Duesentrieb) 21:23:51 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 parent5446: no, I don't see him in channel right now - it's late in Berlin 21:24:06 ok, next thing 21:24:09 #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 #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Linker_refactor Katie Filbert's proposal, last updated in December 21:24:10 Are people eager for this? 21:24:18 i am :D 21:24:36 it has ZERO comments on the talk page! A little "go for it" would be nice :-) 21:24:38 oh wait lemme read that one first 21:24:40 hahahahha 21:24:56 This is very closely related to TitleValue 21:25:08 Since TitleValue proposes deprecating linker in favor of a service 21:25:28 <TimStarling> yeah, should be on top of TitleValue 21:25:30 oh god yes, Linker needs re-refactoring 21:25:54 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 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 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 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 fair 21:29:42 <TimStarling> flow time 21:29:44 #action aude to collaborate with Daniel, figure out Linker refactor thing 21:29:46 #topic next meetings 21:29:46 #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings Upcoming meetings 21:29:46 RFC review 2014-03-19 (IRC) - MVC Framework and structured logging 21:29:46 RFC review 2014-03-26 (also IRC) - allow styling in templates, + 1 more, you can suggest one to cover 21:29:51 #endmeeting