Talk:Phabricator/versus Bugzilla



SUL does not yet work on, there is only an LDAP login. The test server offers to create a test account. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As said in the intro, "Some of the features described below are planned but not implemented today. In these cases you can follow the link to the task to learn about their current status." In this case the link provided is T346. SUL will work. You can try it today at --Qgil-WMF (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
New attempt, now I got a "phabricator-production would like to have basic access on your behalf on all projects of this site" confirmation request, and declined, because I didn't know why something wants to impersonate my account. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Be..anyone: Thanks for noticing this. The problem is the text of that dialog. Phabricator only wants to know your Wikimedia username in order to assign it to your new Phabricator account, and will not edit or do anything on your behalf in Wikimedia wikis. I have filed bug 71888 and task T598.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tnx. Unrelated, I copied the phab: ready {{tracked}} as is to commons. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update, declined login again, because it wants a "real name" + email address. :-(Be..anyone (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Real name" can be any name so enter whatever you want. We plan to rename that field, see phab:T798. Anything else that is blocking you? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Where is a discussion why this move was made? Jason Quinn (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jason Quinn, thank you for noticing that there is no obvious link to the background of this move in this page. There is a summary of the reason of the move at I have also added to Phabricator/versus Bugzilla the infobox with all the links to the Request for Comments that was discussed and accepted in earlier this year.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm not sure that I understand the timetable correctly, but if something with the existing old bugzilla: and/or mediazilla: Interwikis has to be done now would be a good time to suggest it on Meta. I always liked mediazilla: better, because I considered bugzilla: as the worst user-hostile software ever published.Be..anyone (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still not listed on Special:OAuthListConsumers, neither approved, nor suggested. Is the convoluted registration business obsolete? –Be..anyone (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Be..anyone: what we have done is to add phabricator to the interwiki map with phabricator: and phab:. Why should we touch the bugzilla/mediazilla interwiki links? The links where they appear point to correct Bugzilla pages, and user clicking these links will be automatically redirected to the corresponding Phabricator task (phab:T40).--Qgil-WMF (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I wasn't sure how to interpret the bugzilla to old-bugzilla step, and I care about the old mediazilla: Interwiki. Updating/upgrading pages like m:Template:Main_Page/Sisterprojects/en worldwide in all languages will be lots of fun. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since current Bugzilla URLs will point to Phabricator, and since we need to archive Bugzilla, we had to move Bugzilla to a different location. Thank you for the link, added to phab:T1199.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ACK, I can guess the T1199 details. You'll need a proper SVG logo to replace the old Buggie new or the generic Phacility phabricator logo. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

⚠ "not for average non-technical users" ⚠[edit]

§ Interface says:

Unlike Bugzilla, the Phabricator UI is primarily designed for software development and not for average non-technical users (according to upstream). On this basis, Phabricator refused to implement some bugzilla features intended to make life easier for inexperienced users.

While "Senior Software Developer" is on my resume, that was a long time ago (1980's) in a galaxy far, far away (the refrigerator-size objects that were then called "minicomputers"). Yet Phabricator is intended, like Bugzilla, to be the only channel for users to report bugs:

For wiki software bug reports, use Bugzilla
Wikipedia:Village pump; presumably to be changed six days from now to read "use Phabricator"

If I read this correctly, we can expect an increase in unreported bugs simply because most users won't be able to figure out how to report them, or will decide it's not worth their time and effort when weighed against the rest of their lives. This increase will snowball as bugs remain unfixed long enough to trigger further bugs that happen to catch the notice of one of the technically inclined who can manage Phabricator.

I hope I'm wrong, but is this what we want? --Thnidu (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case in point in the bug that started this: See my comment (#12) on an existing bug in the Bugzilla database, and the sequelæ, especially in comment #15 from user Florian there:
Ok, i see the problem, thanks for reporting this (this should be a seperate bug, i will create one :)). See 73476
He saw my report and was interested enough to look into it. He saw that I had misfiled it (under an apparently similar bug that showed up in my search), tried to reproduce it, failed, and replied to me. I answered him; he then reproduced it and moved it to an appropriate place (new bug report). If any of this social chain had fallen through, the bug would have gone unnoticed. --Thnidu (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That procedure (known as "triage", it didn't have a name in my 20 years old galaxy) is independent of the tool, mediazilla: (my last write access was in 2007) has it, Chromium has it, the original Mozilla-bugzilla has it (last test in 2012), Gna! hosting some open source projects has it, etc.
I see no reason why it should not work at all especially for phabricator:. In some read only tests without account I spotted a few dark corners, and where it was no error on my side somebody with an account created a task. Easy to follow, unless it ends up "upstream", where phabricator: itself is developed. The "post it on your VP or VP/T" recipe suggested for anonymous users also worked for me.
(wrt to a scrambled beyond no good mediazilla: password. Presumably I could now claim old comments by using the same address for phab:, but I'm not sure that I want an account, let alone test this feature—if it exists—for old cruft.)
Bugzilla wanted to be good for everybody, that's not the same as was. I hope I found an NPOV version for this statement after some struggling. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thnidu: I think you should use Phabricator to find for yourself whether it is a good tool for editors willing to report bugs. We think it is, and this is one of the reasons why we are going to use it instead of Bugzilla. Basically the same users that are now in Bugzilla will be soon in Phabricator, and therefore that essential social chain you refer to will be in the new environment as well. From a technicall perspective, Phabricator can encompass social interactions just like Bugzilla can. If you find any specific problem in Phabricator, I'm very interested in hearing about it.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm another user who was perplexed by the same statement, because it's difficult to see why that is mentioned as one of the "improvements over Bugzilla" and left me confused. Then again, the upstream's decision to exclude certain features might have had sensible reasoning, but a reader can't tell it because the paragraph provides no examples. 朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]