[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

Fri Jun 19 10:25:47 PDT 2020

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, 18:55 Hubert Tong, <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
>> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
>> tuned for updates!
>>
> I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in
> place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option
> of Phabricator reviews was being dropped. The original post on this thread
> indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the
> availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to
> move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
>

I don't think the choice is being taken away, but somebody who believes the
cost is worth it has to be willing and able to take on the cost. I can see
that that might feel the same if you'd prefer phab but can't shoulder the
investment, but I think it's an important difference.

We got Phab back in the day when I started to work on clang and decided
that it's not a good use of my time to do email code reviews (and I had to
fight a cultural battle to get it :) if somebody thinks the diff of GitHub
PR to Phab is worth the ongoing investment & security risks, I'm very happy
to hand it over.

>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi folks,
>> >>
>> >> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a
>> while now.
>> >>
>> >> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>> >> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR
>> infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an
>> investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are
>> unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there
>> are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that
>> github PRs make easier.
>> >>
>> >> Thus, I see two options:
>> >> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures
>> out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other
>> means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks
>> outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a
>> variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the
>> migration, of course.
>> >>
>> >> 2. We switch to github PRs
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts?
>> >> /Manuel
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <teemperor at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Friendly ping
>> >>>
>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>> >>> <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > De : llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> De la part de
>> David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>> >>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>> >>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <teemperor at gmail.com>; Manuel
>> Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on
>> reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any
>> upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > - Dave
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via
>> llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Hi all,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on
>> reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to
>> get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It
>> tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading,
>> but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call
>> to identify account, but failed.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google
>> Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic
>> (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest
>> Phabricator release contains that patch.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org
>> so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else
>> from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>> >>> >
>> >>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>> >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >>> > 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/cfe-dev/attachments/20200619/7f20dcd6/attachment.html>