[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Code Review Process
Philip Reames via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Oct 6 10:34:28 PDT 2021
Since I think we're risking confusion on the point here, let me clarify
that at least my response to this thread should not be read as
opposition (or support) for a migration to github. I am expressing no
opinion on that matter. I see the primary point being discussed in this
thread being the decision making process proposed, not the decision itself.
Philip
On 10/6/21 10:26 AM, Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> > … 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 …
>
> James, If you’ll forgive me for cherry-picking a small part of your
> point, I think it bears mentioning that human beings tend to ignore
> future problems until they become current problems. Most of us here
> want to work on compilers, not deal with infrastructure. This doesn’t
> mean that the status quo is ok.
>
> As I see it, it would be a mistake to just continue on with
> zombie-phabricator as we have. Perhaps the board of directors could
> have taken a different tone when presenting this issue, but I think
> they are doing the right thing by forcing a change soon. Tools are
> degrading, and security fixes are not being implemented. If we do
> nothing we’re all going to wake up some day and find that the github
> repo has had its owner changed or somesuch catastrophe. We need to do
> **something**, and I think setting a deadline for a change was the
> right call.
>
> From my perspective, there are 4 reasonable things we can do, in order
> of disruptiveness:
>
> 1. Investigate a community replacement for phabricator. Does Phorge
> meet our needs? Is there a maintained fork of phabricator? Can we
> just drop in some replacement?
> 2. Fork Phabricator, and take on the maintenance burden ourselves.
> This sounds like work.
> 3. Move to github PRs. As others have mentioned, there are pros and
> cons to this.
> 4. Something else? We’d have to figure out what this is, and justify
> it over options 1-3.
>
> If the deadline the board has set is unpalatable to the community,
> then perhaps it makes sense to fork Phabricator, and then decide on a
> longer term migration plan. But we need to do something and we need to
> do it now, not when there’s an actual fire.
>
> Personally, I like Phabricator, and find github PRs to be tedious to
> work with. If we went with github PRs, I would be able to work, but I
> would prefer something more like phabricator.
>
> thanks,
>
> Chris Tetreault
>
> *From:* cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *On Behalf Of *James
> Henderson via cfe-dev
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 6, 2021 1:47 AM
> *To:* Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org>
> *Cc:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Renato Golin
> <rengolin at gmail.com>; clang developer list <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>;
> openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org) <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>;
> LLDB Dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process
>
> *WARNING:*This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be
> wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
>
> 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.
>
> James
>
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 20:52, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto: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 infrastructure.
>
> 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.
> (https://admin.phacility.com/phame/post/view/11/phacility_is_winding_down_operations/
> <https://admin.phacility.com/phame/post/view/11/phacility_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.
>
> -Tanya
>
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2021, at 11:35 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 19:16, Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com
> <mailto: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[1] 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 self-hosting
> so much as it's the lack of an enforceable maintenance
> agreement the Foundation and the
> maintainers.
>
> 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.
>
> cheers,
>
> --renato
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> <https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> <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/20211006/17ca13f8/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list