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

Mon Jun 22 21:25:31 PDT 2020

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:15 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:33 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:04 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev <cfe-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?
>>
>>
>> Last time I checked, they basically said they didn't want us (no customizations, which LLVM folks still wanted).
>
>
> Well, if this is a deal breaker for us, then we can also exclude GitHub PR as a replacement for now: I doubt they offer these customizations.

Not sure it's necessarily quite that clear-cut. LLVM folks might want
the customizations, but if Phab with customizations isn't maintained,
it might be a choice between Phab without those customizations (what
are they?) or GitHub, email, etc - which might be a different
choice/tradeoff.

> What are our alternatives? (other than going back to pure email for reviews)
>
> --
> Mehdi
>
>
>>
>> Whatever we do, we need some volunteer who's willing to spend multiple days on this (and potentially more going forward).
>> I'm currently trying to find a volunteer more than solutions.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev