[llvm-dev] Phabricator Creator Pulling the Plug

[Brian Cain via llvm-dev]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 6:04 PM Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote:

> Does something like Rust's "bors" bot satisfy the herald rules need?
>


sorry, maybe I was thinking of the high-five bot. And it looks like that's
not quite a match for herald.



> re: #2 I have done this on GHE and it's mildly awkward but it does work.
>
> And yes normalizing force pushes is the unfortunate state of GitHub PRs.
> Comments are preserved. Code-anchored comments like review comments are
> marked as referring to out-of-date code, IIRC.
>
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 5:56 PM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We talked about this with the IWG (Infrastructure Working Group) just
>> last week coincidentally.
>> Two major blocking tracks that were identified at the roundtable
>> during the LLVM Dev Meeting exactly 2 years ago are still an issue
>> today:
>>
>> 1) Replacement for Herald rules. This is what allows us to subscribe
>> and track new revisions or commits based on paths in the repo or other
>> criteria. We could build a replacement based on GitHub action or any
>> other kind of service, but this is a bit tricky (how do you store
>> emails privately? etc.). I have looked around online but I didn't find
>> another OSS project (or external company) providing a similar service
>> for GitHub unfortunately, does anyone know of any?
>>
>> 2) Support for stacked commits. I can see how to structure this
>> somehow assuming we would push pull-request branches in the main repo
>> (with one new commit per branch and cascading the pull-requests from
>> one branch to the other), otherwise this will be a major regression
>> compared to the current workflow.
>>
>> What remains unknown to me is the current state of GitHub management
>> of comments across `git commit --amend` and force push to update a
>> branch.
>>
>> Others may have other items to add!
>>
>> --
>> Mehdi
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:39 PM Brian Cain via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > How far are we from a workflow that leverages Github's Pull Requests?
>> Is there some consensus that it's a desired end goal, but some features are
>> missing?  Or do we prefer to use a workflow like this for the long term?
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 4:54 PM Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As I, and others have noticed, it seems that as of today, there’s some
>> certificate issue with arcanist. (See:
>> https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-September/153019.html)
>> The fix seems simple, and a PR is up, but looking through the PR activity,
>> it seems that the PR will not be accepted because Phabricator is no longer
>> being maintained. It seems that arc has become the first casualty of the
>> discontinuation of maintenance of phabricator.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I know that arc is not universally used, but I think it’s a serious
>> blow to many people’s workflows. I think that MyDeveloperDay’s question
>> might have just become a bit more urgent.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I suppose in the short-term, we could fork the phabricator repos in
>> order to fix little issues like this. Alternately, we should probably stop
>> recommending arcanist (unless we want to provide instructions on how to fix
>> any breakages that come along).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >>    Chris Tetreault
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of
>> MyDeveloper Day via llvm-dev
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 10:17 AM
>> >> To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; cfe-commits <
>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org>
>> >> Subject: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Creator Pulling the Plug
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be
>> wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
>> >>
>> >> All
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'm a massive fan of Phabricator, and I know there is often lots of
>> contentious discussion about its relative merits vs github,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But unless I missed this, was there any discussion regarding the
>> recent "Winding Down" announcement of Phabricator? and what it might mean
>> for us in LLVM
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> See:
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://admin.phacility.com/phame/post/view/11/phacility_is_winding_down_operations/
>> >>
>> >> https://www.phacility.com/phabricator/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Personally I'm excited by the concept of a community driven
>> replacement ( https://we.phorge.it/) .
>> >>
>> >> epriestley did a truly amazing job, it wasn't open to public
>> contributions. Perhaps more open development could lead to closing some of
>> the github gaps that were of concern.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> MyDeveloperDay
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210930/cf738755/attachment.html>