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

Tue Jun 23 00:37:22 PDT 2020

Answering multiple questions:
1. the maintenance cost (for our current setup) isn't super high, but it's
high enough that I wasn't able to find Googlers really willing to take it
on, and it's very bursty - I think overall, it's less than a 10% project,
but it can eat up a day or two at unspecific times; for example, we
currently would need a source upgrade, as I believe we have some auth
methods not working any more.
Mehdi & Fangrui, if you want to own this together, that would be the
easiest path forward. I am happy to continue to make sure sendgrid is paid
for (which is currently a couple hundred $ a month).

2. if I can't find Googlers willing to own this, we need to loop this
through somebody else, which, depending on the setup, can be a bit more
up-front work. For example, if FB was willing to take this on for the next
10 years ;) and you'd find a couple of folks at FB, that might be fairly
simple, while the LLVM foundation is currently afaiu not set up to easily
create funding even for the relatively cheap cloud setup we need

3. Mehdi is correct,
https://github.com/r4nt/phabricator/tree/llvm-production is what's
currently running; one of the next tasks would be to see whether we can get
rid of more of the customizations we have (I actually have no idea how far
we are, Eric is not on the team any more, and he's afaict been the last
person to upgrade phab)

High prio work items are:
- keep the server up to date & secure
- keep upgrading to newer Phab versions, reduce or maintain our diff to
mainline

Thanks!
/Manuel

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:04 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:25 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?)
>
>
> I believe it is all there:
> https://github.com/r4nt/phabricator/tree/llvm-production
>
> As far as I know it is mostly about the interactions with the email
> workflow for the *-commits@ mailing-lists, but Manuel knows best here :)
>
> --
> Mehdi
>
>
>
>
>> 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20200623/ce956188/attachment-0001.html>