[llvm-dev] [RFC] Documentation clarification: Phabricator, not the lists is the main entry point for new patches

via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jun 19 08:49:23 PDT 2019

(Resend with the list re-added)

From: Robinson, Paul
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 11:49 AM
To: 'jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk'; Roman Lebedev
Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Documentation clarification: Phabricator, not the lists is the main entry point for new patches

Conversely, I always scan the mailing list, because I am incapable of navigating the Phabricator UI to find the relevant and interesting reviews.  (People have tried to help me in the past.  Maybe it's residual scarring from back when Phab was actively user-hostile; I admit that's better now.  The "help" remains spectacularly un-helpful, last I looked.)

There was talk in the past about connecting Phab up to GitHub somehow so any GitHub user could authenticate to Phab with no real effort, and as we're imminently moving to GitHub that seems like a really good idea.  With that in place, the registration step effectively goes away, and I would have no further objection on those grounds.

From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of James Henderson via llvm-dev
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 10:51 AM
To: Roman Lebedev
Cc: llvm-dev
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Documentation clarification: Phabricator, not the lists is the main entry point for new patches

I don't think I've ever looked at llvm-commits for patches that need reviewing except for when I was looking to actively get involved in reviewing an area I wasn't already subscribed to by default. Certainly, if somebody posted a patch on llvm-commits to one of the binutils like llvm-readelf or llvm-objcopy, I'd be interested in it, but probably wouldn't see it nowadays, as I have too great a workload to filter through the mailing lists, whereas I can setup Herald rules to get myself auto-subscribed/added as a reviewer to relevant patches on Phabricator.

Registering isn't a complicated process, compared to developing a patch in most cases anyway.

That's a long way of saying +1.

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 15:30, Roman Lebedev via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
The current documentation talks about both the Phabricator review, and review
as mail replies on -commits lists. It also talks about submitting
patches to lists,
with the subtext that it may be friendlier for outsiders.

It is true that Phabricator has some entry threshold, larger than
github, or maillists,
so the attempt is not unwarranted. But from what i can tell, 99.9% patches go
via Phabricator. There is a large chance that such a mail-only patch
will simply be
overlooked, ignored, or the very first reply will be "Please post the patch to

Both of these cases i would call counter-welcoming.
I don't think that is what we want?

I propose to fix the docs to specify that all new patches should go
via Phabricator, not lists:

LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190619/33f31ef0/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list