[llvm-dev] [RFC] Documentation clarification: Phabricator, not the lists is the main entry point for new patches

[James Henderson via llvm-dev]

>
> And definitely emphasize the need to add llvm-commits explicitly to the
> review!
>

If I'm not mistaken, there's a Herald rule that now does this. Also, make
sure llvm-commits is added as a subscriber, not a reviewer!

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 21:46, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> +1
>
> With one important note which is that the documentation should not that
> authors are expected to watch llvm-commit for responses, since not all of
> them make it to phabricator.  And definitely emphasize the need to add
> llvm-commits explicitly to the review!
>
> Philip
> On 6/19/19 10:57 AM, Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> On 6/19/19 12:50 PM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> I believe the history is that when Phab was initially introduced, we wrote
> the documentation this way to make things easy for reviewers who didn't
> want to change their workflow. But, I agree with your observations. The
> majority of code review seems to happen on Phabricator, and the best way to
> get traction on a new patch is to upload it to Phab and add a few reviewers
> by name. Regardless of what workflow reviewers would prefer, I think the
> documentation should recommend Phabricator over email  to first time
> contributors, since, in my experience, it gets better results.
>
>
> +1
>
>  -Hal
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:30 AM Roman Lebedev via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> The current documentation talks about both the Phabricator review, and
>> review
>> as mail replies on -commits lists. It also talks about submitting
>> patches to lists,
>> with the subtext that it may be friendlier for outsiders.
>>
>> It is true that Phabricator has some entry threshold, larger than
>> github, or maillists,
>> so the attempt is not unwarranted. But from what i can tell, 99.9%
>> patches go
>> via Phabricator. There is a large chance that such a mail-only patch
>> will simply be
>> overlooked, ignored, or the very first reply will be "Please post the
>> patch to
>> Phabricator".
>>
>> Both of these cases i would call counter-welcoming.
>> I don't think that is what we want?
>>
>> I propose to fix the docs to specify that all new patches should go
>> via Phabricator, not lists:
>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D63488
>>
>> Roman.
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190620/3144742a/attachment.html>