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

Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jun 22 02:34:54 PDT 2020 

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:45 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab.
>
> You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request by
> definition compares your working copy against master.
>
> This is not very compatible with LLVMs approach to incremental
> development.  For example, if you ask someone to break a large patch into 5
> smaller patches, with Phab this is very easy because you can upload the
> diff between N and N+1, then N+1 and N+2, etc.
>
> But with the GH workflow in order to get a review on N+4 you have to
> include all the changes from all the earlier revisions as well.
>
> The way around this is to fork and make 5 branches in your fork, then base
> each branch off the previous one.  But now what do you do if someone
> requests a change on the first one?
>
> Overall it’s a pretty serious limitation if you’re used to Phab, and I
> would evaluate very carefully if you’re thinking of going this route
>

Are you volunteering to drive Phab maintenance and keep it up & running?


>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:35 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at roblox.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes GH has a Squash & Merge option that works well.  It’s what we use.
>> We use the GH web interface for all of this though, if you’re supporting
>> command line you may need some custom tooling to support this.
>>
>> The biggest thing is that it requires a lot of mental retraining to get
>> out of the rebasing mindset for daily development
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:32 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the
>>> issues with rebasing are very real.  Unless you only use merge commits you
>>> are going to have a very bad time
>>>
>>> Would it be practical to use merge commits during review (never
>>> rebasing) & then rebasing/squashing to commit to the main line?
>>> (guessing that might still make looking back at the history of the
>>> review difficult?)
>>>
>>> - Dave
>>>
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <keithbsmiley at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved significantly in the
>>> past few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over
>>> resolving / unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've seen
>>> about GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> To be clear: this wasn't an outdated comment here, I'm using GitHub
>>> very frequently *right now* as I'm reviewing contributions to TensorFlow.
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I also believe there's significant value for newcomers and casual
>>> contributors (like myself) in using the same tool as so many other major
>>> open source projects.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 13:04 Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review is frustrating
>>> in comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled across
>>> updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and
>>> merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo
>>> history right now.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> https://www.phacility.com offers hosting for Phabricator, could we
>>> look into this instead?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> Mehdi
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> . 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?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> 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
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>> 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
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Keith Smiley
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200622/7084827c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list