[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Phabricator -> GitHub PRs?

[Daniel Sanders via cfe-dev]

> On Jan 7, 2020, at 19:52, Hubert Tong <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:36 PM Jonas Devlieghere via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:32 PM Daniel Sanders
> <daniel_l_sanders at apple.com <mailto:daniel_l_sanders at apple.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure a decision was already made as such. I think it's more that there was a flurry of conversation last time with lots of conflicting opinions, and then the conversation just fizzled out.
> >
> > FWIW, I like Phabricator but I'm willing to try GitHub. Overall I think we should take the same approach that eventually led to Phabricator being widely adopted: We should allow GitHub PR's and see if the community generally settles on one or the other.
> This means that people proposing patches control the apparent behaviour. How is someone that is primarily a reviewer meant to voice their opinion under such a system?

When Phabricator was being introduced there were a few groups of reviewers who would ask for Phabricator patches to be re-sent by email and a few who would ask for emails to re-posted on Phabricator. To get my code reviewed I'd go along with whatever the reviewers in the area I wanted to change preferred. Over time, more reviewers asked for Phabricator and fewer asked for email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20200107/2fc46da1/attachment.html>