Talk:RESTBase/Archive

Proposed?

Re: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=RESTBase&diff=1381409&oldid=1381405

If neither related RFC (Storage service (talk) and Content API (talk)) has been accepted yet, isn't RESTBase simply proposed? I don't follow the partial revert here. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Max, as I said on wikitech as well, we have discussed RESTBase several times in RFC meetings (see for example RESTBase/Architectural_options_considered) & decided to proceed with it. The RFCs are still up for historical context, but don't describe RESTBase as implemented any more. -- Gabriel Wicke (GWicke) (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, who's we? RESTBase/Architectural options considered only has your name attached to it, as far as I can tell. Were you the sole author? Who decided to proceed with RESTBase? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Max, present were (from memory) Tim, Mark, Faidon, Aaron, Roan, Brion, James, Max. We decided that the current design was the best option for now & that we should move ahead with it to replace the current Parsoid Varnishes & provide HTML content to VE, Flow and others. -- Gabriel Wicke (GWicke) (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I found <http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20141105.txt>. If the group you mention (Max --> MaxSem and James --> James F.?) endorsed RESTBase, I certainly trust their judgment. I'm just trying to verify that they did.

Tim says "comparative benchmark against mysql would be nice, but gwicke not offering to implement" and shortly after the meeting ends, so now I'm really confused. Was there a subsequent meeting? I grepped the #wikimedia-office logs and the only other reference to RESTBase comes from 20141119.txt, but they're passing references, it seems. I'm still not clear who decided what, but I'm likely looking in the wrong place. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the subsequent meeting was on November 20th as mentioned in RESTBase/Architectural_options_considered. James is James Douglas. -- Gabriel Wicke (GWicke) (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(Thanks for the quick replies.) I think you might've just answered my next question about Mark basically saying that RESTBase needs an RFC at <http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20141105.txt> ("at least we should be able to weigh the cons and pros, I don't think we have those fully yet").
Looking at RESTBase/Architectural options considered, I actually don't see a clear decision. I can't figure out who participated in the November 20, 2014 discussion and what the participants discussed or agreed to. Are there Hangout logs? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)