[LLVMdev] Phabricator and private reviews

[Eli Bendersky]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:

>
> On 25/06/2014 21:03, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>
>  On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com <mailto:
>> alp at nuanti.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     For whatever reason, patches posted to the Phabricator website
>>     still aren't being sent to the mailing list, making it difficult
>>     for us to review them.
>>
>>     I've raised this issue a couple of times in the last few weeks.
>>
>>     In practice this has a detrimental effect to the development
>>     workflow because it means that code is being seen only by a small
>>     group of individuals who have web accounts. The code isn't hitting
>>     llvm-commits or cfe-commits where the majority of code maintainers
>>     use the mailing lists for review.
>>
>>     At this point I think Phabricator should be disabled and patches
>>     should be send to the mailing lists *until* the technical issue is
>>     confirmed resolved.
>>
>>     It's really uncool that code is entering ToT through this
>>     back-channel -- I appreciate that it might not be intentional, but
>>     every single patch that gets committed this way is a real problem
>>     for the project.
>>
>>
>> Phabricator has certainly had its share of technical difficulties lately.
>> Just last week it suppressed all email to llvm-commits for many hours.
>> These problems should be solved. That said, talking of "private reviews"
>> and "back-channels" doesn't strike me as constructive.
>>
>
> Eli, I wasn't making a value judgement. That's exactly what they are:
>
>   1) They're private reviews because they're conducted away from the LLVM
> community.
>   2) It's a back-channel because the only means of veto is to revert the
> patch or attempt to "fix forward" post-commit.
>
> I already pointed out that it may not be intentional --


"May" not be intentional suggests that it also "may" be intentional. Or is
it English comprehension failing me? [sorry, 3rd language...]

When llvm-commits is CCd on the Phabricator review, any suggestion of
intentional hiding is not only inappropriate, but also somewhat ridiculous.
Unless you're suggesting someone is planting those PHP bugs? [that could be
unintentional, I concede, since PHP is just one big bug in general]

Again, no disagreement whatsoever that the bugginess is harmful and should
be addressed. But the tone could be friendlier.

Eli
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140625/3621f328/attachment.html>