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

[Anshil Gandhi via llvm-dev]

+1 for Nick's comment

 Anshil

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 2:19 PM Nick Desaulniers via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> 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
> tests.
>
> 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 It seems an obvious risk to me that phab is no longer maintained, but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
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> ~Nick Desaulniers
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20211005/1ba9dfac/attachment.html>