[llvm-dev] Proposing a llvm-patch helper script in-tree to create/apply patches without arc

Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jan 21 13:53:27 PST 2020

+1 to this. I will not deny that, for whatever reason, people don't seem to
use Arcanist. Using PHP as the scripting language seems to be a major
sticking point for people, since it is not typically preinstalled or
required for normal LLVM development, in the way that Python is. I've done
it, and it works for me.

I think it makes more sense to try and standardize on the existing tool
rather than building our own. If that means writing three docs with steps
for Win, Linux, and Mac, so be it, it will cost less to maintain than
something custom written against the Phab APIs.

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:09 PM David Tellenbach via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> although I think making the arcanist workflow more accessible is an
> excellent idea I'm not entirely sure if providing a custom script is the
> best solution (yet).
> A lower hanging fruit would be to have a good and comprehensive
> documentation, ideally including some example workflows, for using arcanist
> with LLVM. While the Phabricator documentation on arcanist is quite helpful
> for getting started it's not very detailed. Our own docs on the topic are
> basically non-existent.
> The downsides of providing a custom script are obvious: Someone has to
> write it and someone has to maintain it. Moreover I don't think that
> arcanist is so complicated that a custom script would be a huge improvement
> (you'd have to read the documentation of the new tool anyway).
> If a well organized documentation still doesn't resolve the problem of
> arcanist being too confusing (uncommon, ...) we could definitely think
> about providing a custom script, I just think it's not the first logical
> step.
> Thanks,
> David
> > On 21. Jan 2020, at 03:15, Florian Hahn via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > One takeaway for me from the recent Phabricator vs Github PR discussions
> was that arc (arcanist) can be a pain to set up and may pose a hurdle for
> some contributors.
> >
> > I think those points could be addressed relatively easily by adding a
> llvm-patch script (or an even better name) that allows users to create and
> apply patches from reviews.llvm.org using Phabricators API. In my
> experience, the three most common uses cases are:
> >
> > 1. Create a new review from the current HEAD commit in the working
> directory and let me optionally add subscribers/reviewers
> > 2. Update the diff for an existing review with the current HEAD commit
> in the working directory
> > 3. Download the latest diff for a revision and apply it to the working
> directory, using the commit message from Phabricator.
> >
> > Those should be fairly easy to implement and as a proof-of-concept I
> went ahead and put up a patch implementing 3. from the list above:
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D73075 .
> >
> > Please note that the script is probably a bit rough around the edges and
> I probably won’t have time to implement 1. and 2. in the near future on my
> own, but maybe someone would be interested in helping out.
> >
> > I think that could improve the experience for new contributors
> substantially:
> > * Create a new patch: `llvm-patch upload`
> > * Apply a patch from a review: `llvm-patch apply D12345`.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Florian
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://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/20200121/9c0ffcb5/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list