[llvm-dev] Allowing PRs on GitHub for some subprojects

[Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 4:19 AM Christian Kühnel via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi Louis,
>
> I think this is a good idea. We should start with some local experiments
> where people are willing to try it and figure out how well that works and
> what does not. Why not allow this for "not significant" changes? They are
> merged without review today, so we could do them with reviews (and
> automated tests) via pull requests instead.
>

I still feel this is only a recipe for confusion if "some" pull-requests
are accepted on Github but not all. So -1 from me on this.


>
> @Mehdi
>
>> - it does not favor to build common tooling: the recent work on enabling
>> pre-submit CI tests on Phabricator is valuable and I'm looking forward to
>> get this extended. But splitting the various ways of contributing to the
>> repo just means more infrastructure to build to sustain this kind of
>> efforts. (the infrastructure is easier built on GitHub by the way, but
>> that is an argument in favor of migrating from Phab to GH for the
>> full-project).
>>
>
> Oh I'm happy to add Github support as soon as someone switches on PRs.
> This is soooooo much easier to set up and maintain than the Phabricator
> integration. And we already have builds for the release branch (
> https://buildkite.com/llvm-project/llvm-release-builds) anyway. So we
> could easily scale that up. And we can only get pre-merge testing on
> Phabricator to a certain point, as it's not triggering builds for ~50% of
> the code reviews.
>
> @Chris Lattner
>
>> Although I am one of the (many) people who would love to see us move from
>> Phabricator to GitHub PRs, I think it is super important that we do the
>> transition all at once to keep the LLVM community together.  I’m already
>> concerned about the fragmentation the discourse server is causing, e.g.
>> MLIR not using a -dev list.  I’d rather the community processes stay
>> consistent.
>>
>
> Please allow me to disagree there. IMHO we're way too large and diverse of
> a project to do binary, overnight transitions.
>

You seem to be arguing the "how to transition" while there is no agreement
on a transition happening in the first place.


> We're also too large to follow a one-size-fits-all approach. If we agree,
>

I don't: we went with a monorepo because we believed that the
one-size-fits-all would be more beneficial than splitting, both in terms of
infrastructure, but also in terms of the practices of the community, etc.

Github PRs are the right glow, why take this step-by-step. We should have
> something like a list of important and supported use cases/interactions for
> the infrastructure. Then we could start working on them one-by-one and
> figure out if/how they could be implemented on Github and how we could do a
> smooth transition between these.
>
> If Herald rules are important: Find a way to implement something similar
> for Github. Maybe there is even a market for such a tool.
> If transparency is the problem: Find a way to mirror PRs into Phabricator,
> so people can at least see them there.
> We're not restricted to community contributions there. We can also pay
> someone to build the things we need.
>

One aspect here though is that we can pay someone to build the things we
need in Phabricator, we can't change GitHub though.
It was mentioned in the past that we should engage with GitHub and see if
they would add the feature we're missing to their roadmap, if it hasn't
been done I'd start there: building up this list of things that need to
happens before we can agree towards a transition, and engaging with GitHub
to have these.

-- 
Mehdi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200229/8799d373/attachment-0001.html>