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

Philip Reames via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jun 19 13:46:25 PDT 2019


With one important note which is that the documentation should not that 
authors are expected to watch llvm-commit for responses, since not all 
of them make it to phabricator.  And definitely emphasize the need to 
add llvm-commits explicitly to the review!


On 6/19/19 10:57 AM, Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev wrote:
> On 6/19/19 12:50 PM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev wrote:
>> 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.
> +1
>  -Hal
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:30 AM 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
>>     Phabricator".
>>     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:
>>     https://reviews.llvm.org/D63488
>>     Roman.
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     LLVM Developers mailing list
>>     llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>     https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> -- 
> Hal Finkel
> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190619/b1bc33df/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list