[llvm-dev] Phabricator Creator Pulling the Plug

[Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 4:09 PM Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.

Actually high-five may be a good starting point!
In practice it may still be a bit limited by the GitHub integration:
for example I suspect you may not be able to "subscribe" someone to a
pull-request?
Also what the user will receive as an email may be quite unhelpful
(you have been subscribed to "<pull-request title>" instead of the
current more comprehensive emails).


>
>
>>
>> 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 Code-anchored comments like review comments are marked as referring to out-of-date code, IIRC.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