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

[Chris Lattner via cfe-dev]

> On Jun 24, 2020, at 9:28 AM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I’m not speaking on behalf of the board, I am just sharing my personal opinion here:
> 
> 
> I *really* like the Phabricator workflow in practice - I feel like it fits very nicely with the LLVM development model and aside from some super minor UI squabbles, it seems to work great in practice.  I am really thankful that Manuel and others made this happen over the years, it was a huge step up from where we were.
> 
> That said, I can’t see a world in which it makes sense to maintain this, particularly in the absence of a dedicated team that will do ongoing security and other maintenance.  Having such critical project infrastructure on shaky maintenance grounds is a huge liability, and we’ve had Phab go down briefly in the past.
> 
> This can be addressed by going to a professional hosting for Phabricator though.

Yes, I agree, if there is a credible option for professional hosting of Phabricator, we should definitely consider that.  Does Phabricator have a committed path and long term engineering group backing it?

> When I looked into this possibility (GitHub PR) when we merged MLIR in the monorepo: just Herald rules was already a blocker and I couldn't find a replacement readily available on GitHub. The handling of stack of revisions on GitHub was another problem mentioned.

Fair enough - I haven’t investigated the technical issues with adopting GitHub PRs for LLVM.  My experience with the Swift community has been extremely positive though, I’d be surprised if there is something particularly crazy that only LLVM needs that GitHub hasn’t encountered.  That said, again, I don’t have any practical experience with this part of the stack,

-Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20200624/0c625099/attachment.html>