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

[Manuel Klimek]

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:41 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:

> 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).
>

See here:
https://github.com/r4nt/llvm-reviews/

Things that would help right now:
a) make it easier to start hacking on it (part of that would probably be to
create a small dockerfile around the scripts there; I don't think we'll
want to host with docker, because docker seems to not really match a "1
lamp machine" setup well)
b) help merging with phab upstream changes, testing that everything still
works after the merge, and send me a pull request; the closer we keep to
upstream the better our security is, and the easier it is to hack on
features
c) implement the things people have complained about: for example, figuring
out why we sometimes send empty mails to the llvm-dev mailing list would be
a good start

Thanks!
/Manuel


>
> —
> 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>
> 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> writes:
>> > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:31 PM Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 4:25 PM, Matthias Braun <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/20150528/33288a97/attachment.html>