[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator -> GitHub PRs?
Renato Golin via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jan 15 03:11:16 PST 2020
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 10:47, Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote:
> > I still find Phab to be inscrutable. I don't use any of its advanced
> > features. I'm a long-time contributor.
> I asked a similar question in this thread in the very beginning: What
> actual problems do you have with Phab? There might be usable solutions
> out there already. The last time someone actually listed problems we got
> a lot of good responses, some of which I will try out myself.
This thread has fallen down to the following pattern:
1. I tell you what I don't like / can't stand
2. You tell me that's not a problem for you and why
3. You ask me to counter your argument
This is not a helpful way to conduct a fact checking exercise.
I respect the opinion of both sides, and I know some people have
gotten to like Phab and others to hate.
I ask that people refrain from attacking others for not engaging in
tit-for-tat "my fact is better than yours" discussion.
Phab is good for some things, Github is good for others. People are
allowed to like either.
> I am always in favor of improving the documentation. We need more
> concrete problem descriptions though.
More documentation or tooling won't fix the fact that much more people
know about GitHub PR than Phab.
It's the same reason why we moved to monorepo GitHub, because everyone
had their own tooling to handle multi-repo Git-SVN hybrid.
If we change the process to be more in tune with GitHub, then their PR
system will (obviously) be far more suitable.
What I'm asking is that we review both together. Current process with
Phab versus a GitHub process with GitHub PR.
> > For all of GitHub's many flaws, its very strong advantage is that it is
> > a de facto standard. People understand it.
> I do not. Arguably because I have not yet used it.
He said "most people". He is right, even if you don't, personally. Git
PR (GitHub, GitLab, Gerrit) is indeed the de facto standard.
> However, "it is a de facto standard" is a weird argument for anything. People are advocating
> to move away from mailing lists towards other system though mailing
> lists are, or at least were, "de facto standard". Is the idea to keep up
> with the "de facto standard" or to improve the status quo (for group X*)?
That's the very definition of "de facto". The vast majority of people
use Git, and of those, GitHub/GitLab, and of those, Git PRs.
Phab is niche compared to GitHub. It doesn't make it worse, but that is a fact.
More information about the llvm-dev