[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

Nick Desaulniers via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Oct 5 13:18:05 PDT 2021

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:05 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> # Proposal
> The LLVM Foundation Board of Directors is seeking comment on the current state of Code Review
> within the LLVM Project and its sub-projects.   Phabricator is no longer actively maintained
> and we would like to move away from a self-hosted solution, so our goal is to determine if
> GitHub Pull Requests are a good alternative to our current code review tool: Phabricator.
> Specifically we are looking for feedback on:
> - What features or properties make Github Pull Requests better than Phabricator?

I appreciate the ability to have bots help participate in code review,
though perhaps this isn't actually specific to github.

In particular, I think rustc's use of bors for merging is pretty
awesome; people literally cannot merge unless the bot has run all unit
tests on all platforms.  As is, anyone can commit without running any

I frequently break the build for non-linux platforms. That LLVM has so
many reverts for breakage on platforms tested post submit is
embarrassing.  People chasing such breakages is a waste of their time,
IMO.  We should have more pre-submit testing; I think the board should
focus on that particular problem first, BEFORE pursuing changing code
review platforms.

It seems an obvious risk to me that phab is no longer maintained, but
as others have noted, it hasn't all come crashing down yet.

> - What features or properties  make Phabricator better than GitHub Pull Requests?
> - What new workflows or process improvements will be possible with GitHub Pull Requests?
> - Which workflows aren’t possible with GitHub Pull Requests?
> - Any other information that you think will help the Board of Directors make the best decision.
> # Where to Direct Feedback
> Please provide feedback on the Infrastructure Working Group ticket[1].  This will make
> it easier to collect and consolidate the responses.   At the end of the comment period
> the Infrastructure Working Group will collect the feedback for further analysis and summarization.
> # Timeline
> The timeline for this RFC will be as follows:
> - RFC posted on llvm-dev for public review and comment
> - 30 days after the date of posting, public comment closes.
> - IWG will have 14 days from closure of public comments to review and summarize public
>    comments into a pros and cons list to be present to LLVM Foundation Board
> - Foundation Board will have 30 days to make a final decision about using GitHub Pull Requests
>    and then communicate a migration plan to the community.
> Thank you,
> LLVM Foundation Board of Directors
> [1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-iwg/issues/73
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

~Nick Desaulniers

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list