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

[Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of John Marshall
> via cfe-dev
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 7:04 AM
> To: Jonas Devlieghere via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Phabricator -> GitHub PRs?
> 
> On 8 Jan 2020, Jonas Devlieghere wrote:
> > I believe that technically sending patches to the mailing list is
> > still a valid way to get your code reviewed. Not everyone monitors the
> > mailing list actively though so that might turn out to be more
> > frustrating than Phabricator.
> 
> I can confirm that this is indeed frustrating.
> 
> I am only a user of Clang (and a former very minor contributor to GCC) but
> I was recently sufficiently piqued by a small Clang diagnostic infelicity
> that I looked into fixing it, and came up with what appears to this
> neophyte to be a trivial 2-line fix. As a first-time contributor to Clang,
> I read the instructions for contributing at
> <http://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html>:
> 
> 	"Clang is a subproject of the LLVM Project, but has its own mailing
> lists because the communities have people with different interests. The
> two clang lists are:
> 	• cfe-commits - This list is for patch submission/discussion.
> 	[snip]"
> 
> And at <https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#sending-patches> (via
> <http://clang.llvm.org/hacking.html#patches>: "To contribute changes to
> Clang see LLVM's Getting Started page"):
> 
> 	"We don’t currently accept github pull requests, so you’ll need to
> send patches either via emailing to llvm-commits, or, preferably, via
> Phabricator."
> 
> Having a trivial one-off patch to propose, and presented with a choice of
> creating a Phabricator account at llvm and learning how to use it or
> simply sending the patch via email -- obviously I chose the latter [1].
> It's only been 10 days but there have been no replies and around 2000
> other emails on the list since then. Of those ~2000, I noticed three that
> were not automatically generated -- one of which was a reply to another
> newbie, so well done Jonas Toth! [2]
> 
> Apart from that one instance of a reply, it would appear that 99+% of the
> messages on cfe-commits these days are automatically generated and hence
> that approximately zero people are actively monitoring the mailing list.
> So it would probably be good to update the contributing instructions to
> reflect reality.
> 
>     John

I expect 99+% of the messages on cfe-commits are automatically generated,
but that doesn't mean nobody reads the list.  I'm not the only one who
finds the Phabricator UI to be appallingly bad or even impenetrable, for
anything more sophisticated than posting comments.  (I also have a recipe
for posting new patches, learned through trial and many errors.)
I certainly don't use the web UI for figuring out which patches to read
and/or comment on; I use the mailing list for that.  Regretfully I don't
do much with the Clang sub-project.

The protocol for proposed patches is effectively the same for emailed
patches as for Phab patches: directly CC people who would appear to be
appropriate reviewers, and reply with a "ping" every week or so if there
are no responses.  This will bump the patch up in the mailing list queue
on the list, and (one hopes) the direct CC will be noticed by people who
don't ordinarily read the list.

HTH,
--paulr

> 
> 
> [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-
> 20200120/302838.html
> [2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-
> 20200127/304742.html
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev