[LLVMdev] Phabricator and private reviews

[Eric Christopher]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Vadim Chugunov <vadimcn at gmail.com> wrote:
> In a recent review via Phabricator, I was receiving bounce notifications for
> mail being sent to llvm-commits because of "Too many recipients to the
> message", even though I am a subscriber.  I wonder how common is that.
>
>

Not too common, but it does happen. There is an issue with that. I'm
not sure what the maximum number is so that we can make the maximum
number of people on a phab review smaller.

-eric

> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am prioritizing email issues. Please always make sure to send them
>> directly to me when you encounter them. Thanks.
>>
>> On Jun 25, 2014 7:34 PM, "Owen Anderson" <resistor at mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have to agree with Alp here.  I’ve seen a number of review threads that
>>> either seem to be missing emails or in which the emails arrive days in
>>> unintelligible orders.  I don’t know that we need to cut off use of it, but
>>> we need to prioritize resolving this issue.
>>>
>>> —Owen
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 25, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I don't think it's all patches. I've had plenty of patches go up and
>>> > get reviewed with the reviews going to the list lately.
>>> >
>>> > I'm going to object to this proposal.
>>> >
>>> > -eric
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Alp Toker <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.
>>> >>
>>> >> Alp.
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> http://www.nuanti.com
>>> >> the browser experts
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>