<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:41 PM Mehdi Amini <<a href="mailto:mehdi.amini@apple.com">mehdi.amini@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Hi Manuel,<div><br></div><div>I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me know how I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP).</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>See here:</div><div><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_r4nt_llvm-2Dreviews_&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=SxzYt3qpSJEPpPBmi-rW-s0dzSvs9ZpRHdeDdWMjUjE&s=R5GvJVuES4m2xL8naqc8DF4yD3MErp6LGBwYY9HCFHg&e=">https://github.com/r4nt/llvm-reviews/</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Things that would help right now:</div><div>a) make it easier to start hacking on it (part of that would probably be to create a small dockerfile around the scripts there; I don't think we'll want to host with docker, because docker seems to not really match a "1 lamp machine" setup well)</div><div>b) help merging with phab upstream changes, testing that everything still works after the merge, and send me a pull request; the closer we keep to upstream the better our security is, and the easier it is to hack on features</div><div>c) implement the things people have complained about: for example, figuring out why we sometimes send empty mails to the llvm-dev mailing list would be a good start</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div><div>/Manuel</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><br></div><div>— </div><div>Mehdi</div><div><br><div><br></div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On May 27, 2015, at 3:12 AM, Manuel Klimek <<a href="mailto:klimek@google.com" target="_blank">klimek@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">Quick update from IRC chat:<br>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 ;)</div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM Justin Bogner <<a href="mailto:mail@justinbogner.com" target="_blank">mail@justinbogner.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Moving this to llvmdev - it needs a bit of a wider audience.<br>
<br>
There are several issues with phabricator, and in the current state of<br>
things there's a huge amount of confusion on how to even report<br>
problems, let alone try to resolve them.<br>
<br>
Recently I started a thread about empty emails, was directed to the<br>
phabricator project's bug tracker, and told there that LLVM has<br>
customized phabricator so there's nothing they (phab) can do. Soon<br>
after, the message I'm replying to below was sent to llvm-admin, and it<br>
was pointed out that they don't maintain phab, so there's nothing *they*<br>
can do:<br>
<br>
Chandler Carruth <<a href="mailto:chandlerc@google.com" target="_blank">chandlerc@google.com</a>> writes:<br>
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:31 PM Tanya Lattner <<a href="mailto:tonic@nondot.org" target="_blank">tonic@nondot.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 4:25 PM, Matthias Braun <<a href="mailto:matze@braunis.de" target="_blank">matze@braunis.de</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> This happens to me as well from time to time. I wonder if there is a<br>
>>> way to have phabricator add llvm-commits to CC as soon as<br>
>>> "repository llvm" or "project llvm" is selected. Or maybe revisions<br>
>>> with an empty subscribers field could be rejected.<br>
>><br>
>> llvm-admin doesn't administrate the phabricator. You need to contact:<br>
>> Manuel Klimek or Chandler Carruth.<br>
><br>
> This has been discussed before. If you look at the prior discussions on<br>
> llvmdev about phabricator you should find lots of references to it.<br>
><br>
> I don't want to repeat the entire discussion but the essence is "sure, it<br>
> could be done, but someone must write the code to do it". The code is posted<br>
> where you can get at it, we can even put it in an LLVM repository if that<br>
> helps, but so far none have stepped up to write the code to make this happen.<br>
> I donated hardware to get this whole thing started for a year, and Manuel did<br>
> the much more time consuming work to get it up to the point it is currently<br>
> at, but I don't think he has a lot more time to devote to it.<br>
<br>
I appreciate the effort that you (Chandler) and Manuel have put into<br>
this, but I find this answer a bit lacking in important details.<br>
<br>
Where is the code posted? Where is the documentation about that? The<br>
docs at <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__llvm.org_docs_Phabricator.html&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=qHj0853NIJxgsizaAYOr0vhQPWpAgRpQgywGYHT2CRU&s=JS0eDDtJFMTO7BpI-Nv4KZZhMUgYpbLSUFmycYIKjuo&e=" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html</a> don't tell me anything<br>
more than "Please let us know whether you like it and what could be<br>
improved!".<br>
<br>
Most importantly, where can I file bugs about LLVM's phabricator<br>
instance?<br>
<br>
> Fundamentally, we need folks in the community to contribute if they have<br>
> significant problems with the tools.<br>
<br>
Personally, as a reviewer, I find phabricator reviews strictly worse<br>
than sending a patch to the llvm-commits list. Off the top of my head,<br>
with phab:<br>
<br>
- The patch doesn't always show up on the mailing list,<br>
- Replies to review comments and the patch that accompanies them come in<br>
different emails,<br>
- Several emails show up in your inbox with nothing but a link, and no<br>
indication why they were sent,<br>
- Comments and responses to comments sometimes show up twice - once from<br>
the person who says them and another time from phab,<br>
- Patches are often (but not always) duplicated - both inline *and*<br>
attached. This is bizarre, useless, and confuses tools like git-am.<br>
<br>
With an email it's trivial to read the diff or to apply the patch to an<br>
LLVM checkout to look at in more detail, including building it or<br>
looking at the result in a text editor.<br>
<br>
I realize that quite a few people find the web interface helpful, so<br>
I've refrained from asking people to post patches directly rather than<br>
using phab so far, but that *would* solve my problems with the tool. We<br>
at least need some clear information on how to file bugs and where to<br>
look if we want to try to fix the problems ourselves.<br>
</blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
_______________________________________________<br>LLVM Developers mailing list<br><a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br><a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div>