[LLVMdev] Phabricator (Was: Automatically adding llvm-commits as CC)

[Mehdi Amini]

Hi Manuel,

I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me know how I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP).

— 
Mehdi



> On May 27, 2015, at 3:12 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
> 
> Quick update from IRC chat:
> Justin (and anybody else who wants to) is going to file bugs against our phab workflow on the llvm-bugtracker until we get a component for it. Help with keeping our phab instance merged and implementing features we need would be highly appreciated (let me know if you'd like to help with PHP hacking ;)
> 
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com <mailto:mail at justinbogner.com>> wrote:
> Moving this to llvmdev - it needs a bit of a wider audience.
> 
> There are several issues with phabricator, and in the current state of
> things there's a huge amount of confusion on how to even report
> problems, let alone try to resolve them.
> 
> Recently I started a thread about empty emails, was directed to the
> phabricator project's bug tracker, and told there that LLVM has
> customized phabricator so there's nothing they (phab) can do. Soon
> after, the message I'm replying to below was sent to llvm-admin, and it
> was pointed out that they don't maintain phab, so there's nothing *they*
> can do:
> 
> Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com <mailto:chandlerc at google.com>> writes:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:31 PM Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org <mailto:tonic at nondot.org>> wrote:
> >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 4:25 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de <mailto:matze at braunis.de>> wrote:
> >>> This happens to me as well from time to time. I wonder if there is a
> >>> way to have phabricator add llvm-commits to CC as soon as
> >>> "repository llvm" or "project llvm" is selected. Or maybe revisions
> >>> with an empty subscribers field could be rejected.
> >>
> >> llvm-admin doesn't administrate the phabricator. You need to contact:
> >> Manuel Klimek or Chandler Carruth.
> >
> > This has been discussed before. If you look at the prior discussions on
> > llvmdev about phabricator you should find lots of references to it.
> >
> > I don't want to repeat the entire discussion but the essence is "sure, it
> > could be done, but someone must write the code to do it". The code is posted
> > where you can get at it, we can even put it in an LLVM repository if that
> > helps, but so far none have stepped up to write the code to make this happen.
> > I donated hardware to get this whole thing started for a year, and Manuel did
> > the much more time consuming work to get it up to the point it is currently
> > at, but I don't think he has a lot more time to devote to it.
> 
> I appreciate the effort that you (Chandler) and Manuel have put into
> this, but I find this answer a bit lacking in important details.
> 
> Where is the code posted? Where is the documentation about that? The
> docs at http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__llvm.org_docs_Phabricator.html&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=qHj0853NIJxgsizaAYOr0vhQPWpAgRpQgywGYHT2CRU&s=JS0eDDtJFMTO7BpI-Nv4KZZhMUgYpbLSUFmycYIKjuo&e=> don't tell me anything
> more than "Please let us know whether you like it and what could be
> improved!".
> 
> Most importantly, where can I file bugs about LLVM's phabricator
> instance?
> 
> > Fundamentally, we need folks in the community to contribute if they have
> > significant problems with the tools.
> 
> Personally, as a reviewer, I find phabricator reviews strictly worse
> than sending a patch to the llvm-commits list. Off the top of my head,
> with phab:
> 
> - The patch doesn't always show up on the mailing list,
> - Replies to review comments and the patch that accompanies them come in
>   different emails,
> - Several emails show up in your inbox with nothing but a link, and no
>   indication why they were sent,
> - Comments and responses to comments sometimes show up twice - once from
>   the person who says them and another time from phab,
> - Patches are often (but not always) duplicated - both inline *and*
>   attached. This is bizarre, useless, and confuses tools like git-am.
> 
> With an email it's trivial to read the diff or to apply the patch to an
> LLVM checkout to look at in more detail, including building it or
> looking at the result in a text editor.
> 
> I realize that quite a few people find the web interface helpful, so
> I've refrained from asking people to post patches directly rather than
> using phab so far, but that *would* solve my problems with the tool. We
> at least need some clear information on how to file bugs and where to
> look if we want to try to fix the problems ourselves.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150527/a5e67c93/attachment.html>