[llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process
James Henderson via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Oct 6 01:46:33 PDT 2021
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if the community consensus is that we should
continue to use Phabricator, and Phabricator is not being
provided/maintained by the LLVM Foundation, isn't it moot what the LLVM
Foundation/Infrastructure Working Group recommends/wants to happen? The
current maintainers would continue to maintain Phabricator (assuming they
wanted to), and people would still be able to review things there. What
would happen if the Foundation officially supported PRs, without community
consensus (in particular from the Phabricator maintainers), is a potential
split in the community, with some continuing in the old way and others
using the new way (and presumably some choosing to review on both
platforms). This cannot be good.
I'm all for the discussion to be had, about whether we switch, but as far
as I can see, nothing's really changed from the previous conversations on
PRs versus Github, apart from the announcement of end of support by the
upstream company, but that was quite a while ago now, and even with the
stale Arcanist issue, there hasn't been a big push from community members
to change: the consensus in the posts discussing this and the moving to PRs
seems to still be "there are things that are blocking switching still".
At the most, from this IWG/Foundation consultation, it should be that the
Foundation recommends one or other approach, and is willing to provide X
infrastructure required. The community can then choose to agree with
whatever approach is recommended or stick with the status quo. There
shouldn't be an edict that says we will do one thing or the other.
Another side-point: whilst the IWG may consist of people who care about
LLVM, there are far more people who care as much, but who just don't have
the time to participate in such a group. This is particularly important to
note, because the community does not elect members to this group. To an
extent, the same is also true of the Foundation board itself, since there
are plenty of people who may not agree with their decisions, but don't have
the time to volunteer for the board. I'm not suggesting that there's any
malice in this discussion, and indeed, the fact that it's open to community
comments certainly is helpful, but I'd be worried of some kind of echo
chamber/unconscious bias within the small groups suggesting there is
consensus for one approach, when the wider community thinks otherwise.
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 20:52, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hello! The purpose of this email is to start a discussion about our code
> review tools. No decisions have been made about changing tools. The idea
> behind a timeline is so that information could be gathered in a timely
> manner. The Infrastructure Working Group was formed to bring together
> community members who have an experience and/or passion regarding
> infrastructure. Anyone can participate in this working group and like the
> LLVM Foundation, the minutes are all made public.
> The LLVM Foundation’s mission is to support the LLVM project and help
> ensure the health and productivity of of the community and this is done
> through numerous ways including infrastructure. I do not think it is a
> negative thing that the foundation board of directors would be discussing
> our current tools and gathering information how how well they work and how
> we can make them better. As the legal entity who bares financial and legal
> responsibility for a lot of the infrastructure, this would make sense. This
> also makes sense because of the people involved who care a lot about LLVM
> and the project. But, the LLVM Foundation does not pay for Phabricator and
> we are very grateful for Google’s support of this critical piece of our
> Regarding Phabricator, there are a couple of pieces of information that
> were provided to the LLVM Foundation by maintainers (maybe previous it
> sounds like) of this instance and how we may need to look into alternative
> ways to support it. In addition, Phacility itself has publicly stated that
> it is winding down operations. (
> Lastly, there are questions about why we are not using GitHub pull requests
> as we are on GitHub and that might be the natural path to take for a number
> of reasons.
> The above reasons are why the RFC was written. Perhaps it wasn’t written
> in the best way, but I also feel like it is being read in a negative way
> which is incredibly disappointing given I don’t feel there is a valid
> reason for this.
> On Oct 5, 2021, at 11:35 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 19:16, Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote:
>> However, it's not a good position for the Board to be responsible
>> for something that it doesn't have control over. If Google decided to
>> stop hosting
>> Phabricator for some reason (unlikely, but not impossible), the Board
>> would be
>> responsible for finding a replacement.
> Sorry, this is a very weak reason for such a strong worded "RFC".
> I _cannot_ imagine "Google" stopping to support something so quickly as to
> leave the foundation without recourse. And even if they did, *no one* would
> blame the foundation for that.
> Even if you ignore all the effort that hundreds of their engineers have
> done over the past decade to the project, this would hurt Google more than
> anyone else. It's a far fetched concern.
> And if the foundation wants "control" of a piece of infrastructure that
> Google has been maintaining for years, then this is a different discussion.
> Hopefully one that doesn't involve unilateral decisions.
>> The main risk is that Phabricator is no longer maintained upstream.
>> There was already an issue recently where the arc tool stopped working
>> and won't
>> be fixed upstream. Using unmaintained software is a bigger risk.
> I don't like using unmaintained software either, but I think our Phab has
> had more attention than the upstream project. And no one has to use arc, I
> certainly never have.
> Don't get me wrong, I don't like Phab and I think Github would bring new
> people to the project, but it's gotta be done the right way, and pushing it
> isn't it.
> We, meaning the LLVM Board of Directors. And really the problem isn't the
>> so much as it's the lack of an enforceable maintenance agreement the
>> Foundation and the
> The problem isn't self-hosting at all, given that Google is doing that.
> (apologies, I assumed otherwise earlier).
> Neither is maintenance, given Google is doing that too.
> The only thing that's left is control, and I don't really understand why
> this is important, as I explained above.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev