<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Since I think we're risking confusion on the point here, let me
clarify that at least my response to this thread should not be
read as opposition (or support) for a migration to github. I am
expressing no opinion on that matter. I see the primary point
being discussed in this thread being the decision making process
proposed, not the decision itself.</p>
<p>Philip<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/6/21 10:26 AM, Chris Tetreault
via llvm-dev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BYAPR02MB4551AEB30F0D88E62C2D0260DAB09@BYAPR02MB4551.namprd02.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">> … nothing's really changed from the
previous conversations on PRs versus Github, apart from the
announcement of end of support by the upstream company, but
that was quite a while ago now, and even with the stale
Arcanist issue, there hasn't been a big push from community
members to change …<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">James, If you’ll forgive me for
cherry-picking a small part of your point, I think it bears
mentioning that human beings tend to ignore future problems
until they become current problems. Most of us here want to
work on compilers, not deal with infrastructure. This doesn’t
mean that the status quo is ok.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As I see it, it would be a mistake to just
continue on with zombie-phabricator as we have. Perhaps the
board of directors could have taken a different tone when
presenting this issue, but I think they are doing the right
thing by forcing a change soon. Tools are degrading, and
security fixes are not being implemented. If we do nothing
we’re all going to wake up some day and find that the github
repo has had its owner changed or somesuch catastrophe. We
need to do *<b>something</b>*, and I think setting a deadline
for a change was the right call.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">From my perspective, there are 4 reasonable
things we can do, in order of disruptiveness:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1" start="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">Investigate
a community replacement for phabricator. Does Phorge meet
our needs? Is there a maintained fork of phabricator? Can we
just drop in some replacement?<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">Fork
Phabricator, and take on the maintenance burden ourselves.
This sounds like work.<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">Move to
github PRs. As others have mentioned, there are pros and
cons to this.<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">Something
else? We’d have to figure out what this is, and justify it
over options 1-3.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If the deadline the board has set is
unpalatable to the community, then perhaps it makes sense to
fork Phabricator, and then decide on a longer term migration
plan. But we need to do something and we need to do it now,
not when there’s an actual fire.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Personally, I like Phabricator, and find
github PRs to be tedious to work with. If we went with github
PRs, I would be able to work, but I would prefer something
more like phabricator.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Chris Tetreault<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> cfe-dev
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cfe-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org"><cfe-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org></a> <b>On Behalf Of
</b>James Henderson via cfe-dev<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 6, 2021 1:47 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Tanya Lattner <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tanyalattner@llvm.org"><tanyalattner@llvm.org></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> llvm-dev <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org"><llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org></a>;
Renato Golin <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rengolin@gmail.com"><rengolin@gmail.com></a>; clang developer
list <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org"><cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org></a>; openmp-dev
(<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:openmp-dev@lists.llvm.org">openmp-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>)
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:openmp-dev@lists.llvm.org"><openmp-dev@lists.llvm.org></a>; LLDB Dev
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org"><lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review
Process<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p style="text-align:center" align="center"><strong><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:yellow">WARNING:</span></strong><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:yellow">
This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be
wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if the
community consensus is that we should continue to use
Phabricator, and Phabricator is not being
provided/maintained by the LLVM Foundation, isn't it
moot what the LLVM Foundation/Infrastructure Working
Group recommends/wants to happen? The current
maintainers would continue to maintain Phabricator
(assuming they wanted to), and people would still be
able to review things there. What would happen if the
Foundation officially supported PRs, without community
consensus (in particular from the Phabricator
maintainers), is a potential split in the community,
with some continuing in the old way and others using the
new way (and presumably some choosing to review on both
platforms). This cannot be good.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'm all for the discussion to be had,
about whether we switch, but as far as I can see,
nothing's really changed from the previous conversations
on PRs versus Github, apart from the announcement of end
of support by the upstream company, but that was quite a
while ago now, and even with the stale Arcanist issue,
there hasn't been a big push from community members to
change: the consensus in the posts discussing this and
the moving to PRs seems to still be "there are things
that are blocking switching still".<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">At the most, from this IWG/Foundation
consultation, it should be that the Foundation
recommends one or other approach, and is willing to
provide X infrastructure required. The community can
then choose to agree with whatever approach is
recommended or stick with the status quo. There
shouldn't be an edict that says we will do one thing or
the other.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another side-point: whilst the IWG
may consist of people who care about LLVM, there are far
more people who care as much, but who just don't have
the time to participate in such a group. This is
particularly important to note, because the community
does not elect members to this group. To an extent, the
same is also true of the Foundation board itself, since
there are plenty of people who may not agree with their
decisions, but don't have the time to volunteer for the
board. I'm not suggesting that there's any malice in
this discussion, and indeed, the fact that it's open to
community comments certainly is helpful, but I'd be
worried of some kind of echo chamber/unconscious bias
within the small groups suggesting there is consensus
for one approach, when the wider community thinks
otherwise.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">James<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 20:52, Tanya
Lattner via llvm-dev <<a
href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello! The purpose of this email is
to start a discussion about our code review tools. No
decisions have been made about changing tools. The
idea behind a timeline is so that information could be
gathered in a timely manner. The Infrastructure
Working Group was formed to bring together community
members who have an experience and/or passion
regarding infrastructure. Anyone can participate in
this working group and like the LLVM Foundation, the
minutes are all made public.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The LLVM Foundation’s mission
is to support the LLVM project and help ensure
the health and productivity of of the community
and this is done through numerous ways including
infrastructure. I do not think it is a negative
thing that the foundation board of directors
would be discussing our current tools and
gathering information how how well they work and
how we can make them better. As the legal entity
who bares financial and legal responsibility for
a lot of the infrastructure, this would make
sense. This also makes sense because of the
people involved who care a lot about LLVM and
the project. But, the LLVM Foundation does not
pay for Phabricator and we are very grateful for
Google’s support of this critical piece of our
infrastructure. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regarding Phabricator, there
are a couple of pieces of information that were
provided to the LLVM Foundation by maintainers
(maybe previous it sounds like) of this instance
and how we may need to look into alternative
ways to support it. In addition, Phacility
itself has publicly stated that it is winding
down operations. (<a
href="https://admin.phacility.com/phame/post/view/11/phacility_is_winding_down_operations/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://admin.phacility.com/phame/post/view/11/phacility_is_winding_down_operations/</a>).
Lastly, there are questions about why we are not
using GitHub pull requests as we are on GitHub
and that might be the natural path to take for a
number of reasons.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The above reasons are why the
RFC was written. Perhaps it wasn’t written in
the best way, but I also feel like it is being
read in a negative way which is incredibly
disappointing given I don’t feel there is a
valid reason for this.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-Tanya<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Oct 5, 2021, at 11:35
AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <<a
href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at
19:16, Tom Stellard <<a
href="mailto:tstellar@redhat.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">tstellar@redhat.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">However, it's not a
good position for the Board to be
responsible<br>
for something that it doesn't have
control over. If Google decided to
stop hosting<br>
Phabricator for some reason (unlikely,
but not impossible), the Board would
be<br>
responsible for finding a replacement.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sorry, this is a
very weak reason for such a strong
worded "RFC".<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I _cannot_ imagine
"Google" stopping to support something
so quickly as to leave the foundation
without recourse. And even if they
did, *no one* would blame the
foundation for that.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Even if you ignore
all the effort that hundreds of their
engineers have done over the past
decade to the project, this would hurt
Google more than anyone else. It's a
far fetched concern.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">And if the
foundation wants "control" of a piece
of infrastructure that Google has been
maintaining for years, then this is a
different discussion. Hopefully one
that doesn't involve unilateral
decisions.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">The main risk is
that Phabricator is no longer
maintained upstream.<br>
There was already an issue[1] recently
where the arc tool stopped working and
won't<br>
be fixed upstream. Using unmaintained
software is a bigger risk.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don't like using
unmaintained software either, but I
think our Phab has had more attention
than the upstream project. And no one
has to use arc, I certainly never
have.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Don't get me
wrong, I don't like Phab and I think
Github would bring new people to the
project, but it's gotta be done the
right way, and pushing it isn't it.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">We, meaning the
LLVM Board of Directors. And really
the problem isn't the self-hosting<br>
so much as it's the lack of an
enforceable maintenance agreement the
Foundation and the<br>
maintainers.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The problem isn't
self-hosting at all, given that Google
is doing that. (apologies, I assumed
otherwise earlier).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Neither is
maintenance, given Google is doing
that too.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The only thing
that's left is control, and I don't
really understand why this is
important, as I explained above.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">cheers,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">--renato<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>