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

Mon Jun 22 10:33:51 PDT 2020

No, I am not even involved with LLVM anymore, I just follow the list
still.  I am only answering David's question about some of the limitations
with the GitHub PR system compared to Phab, to make sure people have all
the information about what moving away from Phab actually means.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:35 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:

> 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/20200622/8604bf8e/attachment-0001.html>