[llvm-dev] [RFC] Documentation clarification: Phabricator, not the lists is the main entry point for new patches
Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jun 19 10:50:48 PDT 2019
I believe the history is that when Phab was initially introduced, we wrote
the documentation this way to make things easy for reviewers who didn't
want to change their workflow. But, I agree with your observations. The
majority of code review seems to happen on Phabricator, and the best way to
get traction on a new patch is to upload it to Phab and add a few reviewers
by name. Regardless of what workflow reviewers would prefer, I think the
documentation should recommend Phabricator over email to first time
contributors, since, in my experience, it gets better results.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:30 AM Roman Lebedev via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> The current documentation talks about both the Phabricator review, and
> 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
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev