[LLVMdev] Phabricator

[Justin Bogner]

Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> writes:
> Hi Manuel,
>
> I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me know how
> I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP).

Chandler updated the llvm phabricator doc to point at what we're deploying:

  http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#status

That'll lead you here:

  https://github.com/r4nt/llvm-reviews
  https://github.com/r4nt/phabricator

And soon there'll be some bugs to squash in llvm.org/bugs ;)

> — 
> Mehdi
>
>     On May 27, 2015, at 3:12 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>    
>     Quick update from IRC chat:
>     Justin (and anybody else who wants to) is going to file bugs against our
>     phab workflow on the llvm-bugtracker until we get a component for it. Help
>     with keeping our phab instance merged and implementing features we need
>     would be highly appreciated (let me know if you'd like to help with PHP
>     hacking ;)
>    
>     On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com>
>     wrote:
>    
>         Moving this to llvmdev - it needs a bit of a wider audience.
>        
>         There are several issues with phabricator, and in the current state of
>         things there's a huge amount of confusion on how to even report
>         problems, let alone try to resolve them.
>        
>         Recently I started a thread about empty emails, was directed to the
>         phabricator project's bug tracker, and told there that LLVM has
>         customized phabricator so there's nothing they (phab) can do. Soon
>         after, the message I'm replying to below was sent to llvm-admin, and
>         it
>         was pointed out that they don't maintain phab, so there's nothing
>         *they*
>         can do:
>        
>         Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> writes:
>         > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:31 PM Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org>
>         wrote:
>         >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 4:25 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de>
>         wrote:
>         >>> This happens to me as well from time to time. I wonder if there is
>         a
>         >>> way to have phabricator add llvm-commits to CC as soon as
>         >>> "repository llvm" or "project llvm" is selected. Or maybe
>         revisions
>         >>> with an empty subscribers field could be rejected.
>         >>
>         >> llvm-admin doesn't administrate the phabricator. You need to
>         contact:
>         >> Manuel Klimek or Chandler Carruth.
>         >
>         > This has been discussed before. If you look at the prior discussions
>         on
>         > llvmdev about phabricator you should find lots of references to it.
>         >
>         > I don't want to repeat the entire discussion but the essence is
>         "sure, it
>         > could be done, but someone must write the code to do it". The code
>         is posted
>         > where you can get at it, we can even put it in an LLVM repository if
>         that
>         > helps, but so far none have stepped up to write the code to make
>         this happen.
>         > I donated hardware to get this whole thing started for a year, and
>         Manuel did
>         > the much more time consuming work to get it up to the point it is
>         currently
>         > at, but I don't think he has a lot more time to devote to it.
>        
>         I appreciate the effort that you (Chandler) and Manuel have put into
>         this, but I find this answer a bit lacking in important details.
>        
>         Where is the code posted? Where is the documentation about that? The
>         docs at http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html don't tell me anything
>         more than "Please let us know whether you like it and what could be
>         improved!".
>        
>         Most importantly, where can I file bugs about LLVM's phabricator
>         instance?
>        
>         > Fundamentally, we need folks in the community to contribute if they
>         have
>         > significant problems with the tools.
>        
>         Personally, as a reviewer, I find phabricator reviews strictly worse
>         than sending a patch to the llvm-commits list. Off the top of my head,
>         with phab:
>        
>         - The patch doesn't always show up on the mailing list,
>         - Replies to review comments and the patch that accompanies them come
>         in
>           different emails,
>         - Several emails show up in your inbox with nothing but a link, and no
>           indication why they were sent,
>         - Comments and responses to comments sometimes show up twice - once
>         from
>           the person who says them and another time from phab,
>         - Patches are often (but not always) duplicated - both inline *and*
>           attached. This is bizarre, useless, and confuses tools like git-am.
>        
>         With an email it's trivial to read the diff or to apply the patch to
>         an
>         LLVM checkout to look at in more detail, including building it or
>         looking at the result in a text editor.
>        
>         I realize that quite a few people find the web interface helpful, so
>         I've refrained from asking people to post patches directly rather than
>         using phab so far, but that *would* solve my problems with the tool.
>         We
>         at least need some clear information on how to file bugs and where to
>         look if we want to try to fix the problems ourselves.
>    
>     _______________________________________________
>     LLVM Developers mailing list
>     LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>     http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev