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

[Renato Golin via cfe-dev]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 13:43, Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> It's worth pointing out that GitHub is not able to do this properly,
> either. The problem on GitHub's side is that while a pull request can
> contain multiple commits, one cannot properly review those commits
> individually, and it is not at all possible to approve individual
> commits in a pull request. And unlike Phabricator, GitHub does not
> allow you to "stack" pull requests.

That is true, but the stacking in Phab is less than obvious, and I
always ask people to add "[N/M]" in the series' titles anyway.

Honestly, the fact that I have to either user Arcanist or edit the
comments metadata by hand or use the UI to do a simple task is asking
a bit too much.

We rarely approve some patches and not others in a series, and when we
do, we ask people to create a new series without the approved patch,
or split them, so that we can continue reviewing the series.

Once the approved patches are committed, the series has already
changed and the representation in Phab is not always true anymore.

I think we need to move from "how apt is GitHub's PR UI in emulating
what Phab does" to "what do we really need from a review UI and how
simple it is the process for both contributors and reviewers".

My honest opinion, after using Phab for too many years, is that it is
too much hassle to both sides. Git (and GitHub) PR has the benefit
that most developers out there use it already, including LLVM
developers contributing to other projects.

The name of the arcane tool we have to use to automate our cul-de-sac
review technology is just the cherry on the cake. :)

--renato