In a recent review via Phabricator, I was receiving bounce notifications for mail being sent to llvm-commits because of "Too many recipients to the message", even though I am a subscriber. I wonder how common is that. On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:> I am prioritizing email issues. Please always make sure to send them > directly to me when you encounter them. Thanks. > On Jun 25, 2014 7:34 PM, "Owen Anderson" <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > >> I have to agree with Alp here. I’ve seen a number of review threads that >> either seem to be missing emails or in which the emails arrive days in >> unintelligible orders. I don’t know that we need to cut off use of it, but >> we need to prioritize resolving this issue. >> >> —Owen >> >> >> On Jun 25, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I don't think it's all patches. I've had plenty of patches go up and >> > get reviewed with the reviews going to the list lately. >> > >> > I'm going to object to this proposal. >> > >> > -eric >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: >> >> For whatever reason, patches posted to the Phabricator website still >> aren't >> >> being sent to the mailing list, making it difficult for us to review >> them. >> >> >> >> I've raised this issue a couple of times in the last few weeks. >> >> >> >> In practice this has a detrimental effect to the development workflow >> >> because it means that code is being seen only by a small group of >> >> individuals who have web accounts. The code isn't hitting llvm-commits >> or >> >> cfe-commits where the majority of code maintainers use the mailing >> lists for >> >> review. >> >> >> >> At this point I think Phabricator should be disabled and patches >> should be >> >> send to the mailing lists *until* the technical issue is confirmed >> resolved. >> >> >> >> It's really uncool that code is entering ToT through this back-channel >> -- I >> >> appreciate that it might not be intentional, but every single patch >> that >> >> gets committed this way is a real problem for the project. >> >> >> >> Alp. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> http://www.nuanti.com >> >> the browser experts >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> > _______________________________________________ >> > LLVM Developers mailing list >> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140625/35f5dc2c/attachment.html>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Vadim Chugunov <vadimcn at gmail.com> wrote:> In a recent review via Phabricator, I was receiving bounce notifications for > mail being sent to llvm-commits because of "Too many recipients to the > message", even though I am a subscriber. I wonder how common is that. > >Not too common, but it does happen. There is an issue with that. I'm not sure what the maximum number is so that we can make the maximum number of people on a phab review smaller. -eric> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: >> >> I am prioritizing email issues. Please always make sure to send them >> directly to me when you encounter them. Thanks. >> >> On Jun 25, 2014 7:34 PM, "Owen Anderson" <resistor at mac.com> wrote: >>> >>> I have to agree with Alp here. I’ve seen a number of review threads that >>> either seem to be missing emails or in which the emails arrive days in >>> unintelligible orders. I don’t know that we need to cut off use of it, but >>> we need to prioritize resolving this issue. >>> >>> —Owen >>> >>> >>> On Jun 25, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > I don't think it's all patches. I've had plenty of patches go up and >>> > get reviewed with the reviews going to the list lately. >>> > >>> > I'm going to object to this proposal. >>> > >>> > -eric >>> > >>> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: >>> >> For whatever reason, patches posted to the Phabricator website still >>> >> aren't >>> >> being sent to the mailing list, making it difficult for us to review >>> >> them. >>> >> >>> >> I've raised this issue a couple of times in the last few weeks. >>> >> >>> >> In practice this has a detrimental effect to the development workflow >>> >> because it means that code is being seen only by a small group of >>> >> individuals who have web accounts. The code isn't hitting llvm-commits >>> >> or >>> >> cfe-commits where the majority of code maintainers use the mailing >>> >> lists for >>> >> review. >>> >> >>> >> At this point I think Phabricator should be disabled and patches >>> >> should be >>> >> send to the mailing lists *until* the technical issue is confirmed >>> >> resolved. >>> >> >>> >> It's really uncool that code is entering ToT through this back-channel >>> >> -- I >>> >> appreciate that it might not be intentional, but every single patch >>> >> that >>> >> gets committed this way is a real problem for the project. >>> >> >>> >> Alp. >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> http://www.nuanti.com >>> >> the browser experts >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list >>> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >
On 6/25/14, 5:15 PM, Vadim Chugunov wrote:> In a recent review via Phabricator, I was receiving bounce > notifications for mail being sent to llvm-commits because of "Too many > recipients to the message", even though I am a subscriber. I wonder > how common is that.Someone else emailed about that to me earlier today. The current limit is set at 10 for llvm-commits. It sounds like that is too low. Does anyone that uses Phabricator have an idea of how much to increase this limit? Would 20 suffice, or are more people than that CC'ed on Phabricator emails? Regards, John Criswell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140625/a535a777/attachment.html>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:30 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote:> On 6/25/14, 5:15 PM, Vadim Chugunov wrote: > > In a recent review via Phabricator, I was receiving bounce notifications for > mail being sent to llvm-commits because of "Too many recipients to the > message", even though I am a subscriber. I wonder how common is that. > > > Someone else emailed about that to me earlier today. > > The current limit is set at 10 for llvm-commits. It sounds like that is too > low. > > Does anyone that uses Phabricator have an idea of how much to increase this > limit? Would 20 suffice, or are more people than that CC'ed on Phabricator > emails? >20 is probably good for now. In general if someone tries to CC more than that on a single review then something has gone wrong. -eric
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:30 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote:> On 6/25/14, 5:15 PM, Vadim Chugunov wrote: > > In a recent review via Phabricator, I was receiving bounce notifications for > mail being sent to llvm-commits because of "Too many recipients to the > message", even though I am a subscriber. I wonder how common is that. > > > Someone else emailed about that to me earlier today. > > The current limit is set at 10 for llvm-commits. It sounds like that is too > low. > > Does anyone that uses Phabricator have an idea of how much to increase this > limit? Would 20 suffice, or are more people than that CC'ed on Phabricator > emails?I'm not exactly sure why Phab should need a higher limit. I've seen a few Phab emails come through with a list as long as my arm - but I don't know why that happens. Anyone know where those are coming from? Maybe it's people using Herald to subscribe to changes in particular parts of the codebase - so when someone starts a code review all the Herald subscribers end up cc'd on the initial mail? I wonder if the Herald subscribers should be bcc'd or handled in some other way? If that's what's happening, and it's the right way to do it, I'm not sure what the right limit is - as more people use Herald we could get larger and larger CC lists. What's the mailing list limit for? What're the tradeoffs of setting it higher, or removing it entirely? - David
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:30 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote:> On 6/25/14, 5:15 PM, Vadim Chugunov wrote: > > In a recent review via Phabricator, I was receiving bounce notifications > for mail being sent to llvm-commits because of "Too many recipients to the > message", even though I am a subscriber. I wonder how common is that. > > > Someone else emailed about that to me earlier today. > > The current limit is set at 10 for llvm-commits. It sounds like that is > too low. >Wait, is that set on llvm-commits, or is this related to phab?> > Does anyone that uses Phabricator have an idea of how much to increase > this limit? Would 20 suffice, or are more people than that CC'ed on > Phabricator emails? > > Regards, > > John Criswell > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140626/712162b4/attachment.html>
Dear All, Based on someone's suggestion, I've bumped the limit up to 20. As to why there is a limit, I don't know. Preventing SPAM may be one reason. Another reason may be that the mailing list server (IIRC) attempts to ensure that a subscriber that is also in the To or CC fields doesn't get the message twice, so the longer the number of receipts is, the more work the server needs to do. Let's try out the higher limit. If it's still a problem, please email llvm-admin. Regards, John Criswell On 6/25/14, 5:30 PM, John Criswell wrote:> On 6/25/14, 5:15 PM, Vadim Chugunov wrote: >> In a recent review via Phabricator, I was receiving bounce >> notifications for mail being sent to llvm-commits because of "Too >> many recipients to the message", even though I am a subscriber. I >> wonder how common is that. > > Someone else emailed about that to me earlier today. > > The current limit is set at 10 for llvm-commits. It sounds like that > is too low. > > Does anyone that uses Phabricator have an idea of how much to increase > this limit? Would 20 suffice, or are more people than that CC'ed on > Phabricator emails? > > Regards, > > John Criswell > > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140626/02684646/attachment.html>