[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Phabricator -> GitHub PRs?

Tue Jan 7 19:35:53 PST 2020

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:32 PM Daniel Sanders
<daniel_l_sanders at apple.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure a decision was already made as such. I think it's more that there was a flurry of conversation last time with lots of conflicting opinions, and then the conversation just fizzled out.
>
> FWIW, I like Phabricator but I'm willing to try GitHub. Overall I think we should take the same approach that eventually led to Phabricator being widely adopted: We should allow GitHub PR's and see if the community generally settles on one or the other.

+1

>
> On Jan 7, 2020, at 19:13, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the tip.
>
> I didn't know that the decision had already been made to stay with Phabricator. I find Phabricator hard to use and it makes me actively avoid contributing to LLVM knowing that I'll have to use it. I've read the documentation, but still have issues. And it's not like git where there's an obscure command not everyone knows about that will fix the problem. The advice I got so far has been to use Phabricator/Arcanist as little as possible within my workflow. I'll try doing that.
>

I believe that technically sending patches to the mailing list is
still a valid way to get your code reviewed. Not everyone monitors the
mailing list actively though so that might turn out to be more
frustrating than Phabricator.

> I apologize to anyone I may have offended.
>
> -bw
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 6:26 PM Daniel Sanders <daniel_l_sanders at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 7, 2020, at 17:35, Jonas Devlieghere via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:16 PM Bill Wendling via cfe-dev
>> > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:59 PM Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Bill,
>> >>>
>> >>> On 01/07, Bill Wendling via llvm-dev wrote:
>> >>>> Then perhaps those opposed could suggest how to use Phabricator/Arcanist so
>> >>>> that I don't throw my keyboard through my monitor?
>> >>>
>> >>> Please explain your problems, w/o the hyperbole, so people can actually do that.
>> >>>
>> >> It's not hyperbole, but fine.  How do you use it to keep multiple, related changes in order?
>> >
>> > You can use parent/child revisions. Phabricator encourages a
>> > patches-based approach with small changes. For me that corresponds to
>> > one commit per code review. When I address code review feedback in a
>> > parent revision I use git's interactive rebase.
>>
>> It's worth mentioning that Phabricator can read strings of the format 'Depends on D1234' from commit messages and create those relationships for you.
>>
>> Also just because it's not easy to find unless you know it's there. You can view the parent/child relationships in the 'Revision Contents' section on the 'Stack' tab.
>>
>> >> The interface for reviewing and responding to reviews is horrific, e.g. quoting text from a review is rather bad, the email it sends is badly formatted and hard to read. How do you make it reasonably useful?
>> >
>> > Inline comments are super useful, they can be marked as done and
>> > hidden. I agree that sometimes there's a lot of context when quoting
>> > text, but the format is very simple (similar to e-mail) so it's easy
>> > to trim.
>> >
>> >> Why can't I *easily* relate changes to each other?
>> >
>> > What issues do you experience with parent/child revisions?
>> >
>> >> Why can't I submit through the Phabricator interface, but have to go to the command line, place the change in a new branch, pull to top-of-tree, rebase, and only then push while hoping it doesn't give fail because the tree became out of date? How can I do a rebase through Phabricator?
>> >
>> > You can upload patches through
>> > https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/create/. I personally don't
>> > use arcanist even though I found it pretty useful in the past.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> These are only off the top of my head. There are far more problems I've had with them.
>> >>
>> >> -bw
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> cfe-dev mailing list
>> >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>