[llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

Tue Jun 23 11:01:15 PDT 2020

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:56 PM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
wrote:

>
> On 6/22/20 2:34 AM, Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:45 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab.
>>
>> You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request by
>> definition compares your working copy against master.
>>
>> This is not very compatible with LLVMs approach to incremental
>> development.  For example, if you ask someone to break a large patch into 5
>> smaller patches, with Phab this is very easy because you can upload the
>> diff between N and N+1, then N+1 and N+2, etc.
>>
>> But with the GH workflow in order to get a review on N+4 you have to
>> include all the changes from all the earlier revisions as well.
>>
>> The way around this is to fork and make 5 branches in your fork, then
>> base each branch off the previous one.  But now what do you do if someone
>> requests a change on the first one?
>>
>> Overall it’s a pretty serious limitation if you’re used to Phab, and I
>> would evaluate very carefully if you’re thinking of going this route
>>
>
> Are you volunteering to drive Phab maintenance and keep it up & running?
>
> This really seems like a question for the board, rather than any
> individual.
>
I've mentioned that trying to get this funded through official LLVM
channels is an option, but from all the information I have, it is not a
short-term viable option.
Having individuals step up and drive it is a significantly less
coordination-heavy and thus, overall, cheaper way.

> If you're resigning and the community values phab, having the board weigh
> in on cost to support the tool seems worthwhile.  I suspect that cost will
> be high enough that we will migrate to something free, but we should at
> least have an informed discussion.
>
> (In case it's not clear, "cost" above is specifically meant in both the
> financial and non-financial sense.  This might be a case where a contractor
> is worth considering instead of relying solely on volunteer labor.
>

>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:35 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at roblox.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes GH has a Squash & Merge option that works well.  It’s what we use.
>>> We use the GH web interface for all of this though, if you’re supporting
>>> command line you may need some custom tooling to support this.
>>>
>>> The biggest thing is that it requires a lot of mental retraining to get
>>> out of the rebasing mindset for daily development
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:32 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
>>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the
>>>> issues with rebasing are very real.  Unless you only use merge commits you
>>>> are going to have a very bad time
>>>>
>>>> Would it be practical to use merge commits during review (never
>>>> rebasing) & then rebasing/squashing to commit to the main line?
>>>> (guessing that might still make looking back at the history of the
>>>> review difficult?)
>>>>
>>>> - Dave
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <keithbsmiley at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved significantly in the
>>>> past few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over
>>>> resolving / unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've seen
>>>> about GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> To be clear: this wasn't an outdated comment here, I'm using GitHub
>>>> very frequently *right now* as I'm reviewing contributions to TensorFlow.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I also believe there's significant value for newcomers and casual
>>>> contributors (like myself) in using the same tool as so many other major
>>>> open source projects.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 13:04 Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part
>>>> of
>>>> >>>>>> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside
>>>> GitHub. Stay
>>>> >>>>>> tuned for updates!
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of
>>>> GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point
>>>> where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review is frustrating
>>>> in comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled across
>>>> updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and
>>>> merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo
>>>> history right now.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> https://www.phacility.com offers hosting for Phabricator, could
>>>> we look into this instead?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> --
>>>> >>>> Mehdi
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> . The original post on this thread indicated interest in not
>>>> maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of
>>>> Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub
>>>> PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
>>>> >>>>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> >
>>>> >>>>>> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>>>> >>>>>> >
>>>> >>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <
>>>> klimek at google.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>>> >> Hi folks,
>>>> >>>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>>> >> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying
>>>> dormant for a while now.
>>>> >>>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>>> >> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>>>> >>>>>> >> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR
>>>> infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an
>>>> investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are
>>>> unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there
>>>> are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that
>>>> github PRs make easier.
>>>> >>>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>>> >> Thus, I see two options:
>>>> >>>>>> >> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and
>>>> figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some
>>>> other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give
>>>> folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a
>>>> variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the
>>>> migration, of course.
>>>> >>>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>>> >> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>>> >>>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>>> >> Thoughts?
>>>> >>>>>> >> /Manuel
>>>> >>>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>>> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <
>>>> teemperor at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>>> >>> Friendly ping
>>>> >>>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>>> >>>>>> >>> <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>:
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > De : llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> De la
>>>> part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <teemperor at gmail.com>;
>>>> Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on
>>>> reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing
>>>> any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > - Dave
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann
>>>> via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > Hi all,
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator
>>>> account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I
>>>> don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into
>>>> my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of
>>>> reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the
>>>> following error:
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus
>>>> API call to identify account, but failed.
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to
>>>> the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that
>>>> logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever
>>>> latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating
>>>> reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and
>>>> maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly
>>>> broken).
>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>> >>> > 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
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> --
>>>> >>>>>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>>>> >>>>>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State
>>>> University
>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>> 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
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> >>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> >>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>> Keith Smiley
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing listcfe-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200623/e5ff2f58/attachment-0001.html>