How much ongoing work do you estimate Phabracitor requires? There’s the times
the server falls over (e.g. database exceptions) and needs to be revived,
there’s updates to Phabricator itself, there’s keeping the server updated, and
probably a bunch of other work I’m not thinking of. About how much of a time
commitment would keeping Phabricator going be, in your estimation?
From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Manuel
Klimek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Reply-To: Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
Date: Monday, June 22, 2020 at 1:21 PM
To: Zachary Turner <zturner at roblox.com>
Cc: LLVM Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org>, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance
Just to explain the background on what I'm trying to get here:
Currently, the way to get something going in LLVM is to have somebody who wants
it strongly enough to do it.
Back in the day, I wanted Phab strongly enough over email that I was willing to
spend the *months* (over the years) it took to make this happen. And it was very
worth it imo :)
Now, for me personally, the cost of Phab (security risk, maintenance, etc) is
not worth the diff to github PRs, as I also see significant upside with github
PRs to new contributors.
Thus, my goal is to find somebody for whom the diff between github PRs and Phab
is large enough that they're willing to spend the time to keep Phab up and
running.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:34 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at
google.com<mailto:klimek at google.com>> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:45 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab.
You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request by definition
compares your working copy against master.
This is not very compatible with LLVMs approach to incremental development. For
example, if you ask someone to break a large patch into 5 smaller patches, with
Phab this is very easy because you can upload the diff between N and N+1, then
N+1 and N+2, etc.
But with the GH workflow in order to get a review on N+4 you have to include all
the changes from all the earlier revisions as well.
The way around this is to fork and make 5 branches in your fork, then base each
branch off the previous one. But now what do you do if someone requests a
change on the first one?
Overall it’s a pretty serious limitation if you’re used to Phab, and I would
evaluate very carefully if you’re thinking of going this route
Are you volunteering to drive Phab maintenance and keep it up & running?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:35 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at
roblox.com<mailto:zturner at roblox.com>> wrote:
Yes GH has a Squash & Merge option that works well. It’s what we use. We
use the GH web interface for all of this though, if you’re supporting command
line you may need some custom tooling to support this.
The biggest thing is that it requires a lot of mental retraining to get out of
the rebasing mindset for daily development
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:32 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com<mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:>
> I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the issues
with rebasing are very real. Unless you only use merge commits you are going to
have a very bad time
Would it be practical to use merge commits during review (never
rebasing) & then rebasing/squashing to commit to the main line?
(guessing that might still make looking back at the history of the
review difficult?)
- Dave
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <keithbsmiley at
gmail.com<mailto:keithbsmiley at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved significantly in
the past few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over resolving
/ unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've seen about
GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated.
>>
>>
>> To be clear: this wasn't an outdated comment here, I'm using
GitHub very frequently *right now* as I'm reviewing contributions to
TensorFlow.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also believe there's significant value for newcomers and
casual contributors (like myself) in using the same tool as so many other major
open source projects.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 13:04 Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via
llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this
as a part of
>>>>>> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied
inside GitHub. Stay
>>>>>> tuned for updates!
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of
GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the
option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review is
frustrating in comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled
across updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and
merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo
history right now.
>>>>
>>>>
https://www.phacility.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.phacility.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=v_EtlEr2Ks7GaS2wr9kUgFYgmGGsXiejr_aM_GeZh1U&e=>
offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mehdi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> . The original post on this thread indicated interest in
not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of
Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs
because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via
llvm-dev
>>>>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct
email :)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek
<klimek at google.com<mailto:klimek at google.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Hi folks,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has
been lying dormant for a while now.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user
experience.
>>>>>> >> For me personally, given that github provides
a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is
not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there
are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there
are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github
PRs make easier.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thus, I see two options:
>>>>>> >> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator
maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation
or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and
give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a
variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the
migration, of course.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thoughts?
>>>>>> >> /Manuel
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael
Isemann <teemperor at gmail.com<mailto:teemperor at gmail.com>>
wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Friendly ping
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb
Alexandre Ganea
>>>>>> >>> <alexandre.ganea at
ubisoft.com<mailto:alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>>:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > De : llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> De la part
de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>>>>> >>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>>>>> >>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann
<teemperor at gmail.com<mailto:teemperor at gmail.com>>; Manuel
Klimek <klimek at google.com<mailto:klimek at google.com>>
>>>>>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>>>>>> >>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated
Phabricator version on
reviews.llvm.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=d1h5h-fUyJtVvn0sldnq7D-gHWY0j2RGm2pTGsVKG1U&e=>
breaks Google authentication since today
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know
who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an
update for this...
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > - Dave
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM
Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Hi all,
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I’m using my Google account to log
into my Phabricator account on
reviews.llvm.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=d1h5h-fUyJtVvn0sldnq7D-gHWY0j2RGm2pTGsVKG1U&e=>
. Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from
reviews.llvm.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=d1h5h-fUyJtVvn0sldnq7D-gHWY0j2RGm2pTGsVKG1U&e=>
when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of
reviews.llvm.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=d1h5h-fUyJtVvn0sldnq7D-gHWY0j2RGm2pTGsVKG1U&e=>
not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > > Expected to retrieve an
"account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but
failed.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > After some searching it seems that
this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator
folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here
[1]
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I assume we haven’t updated
reviews.llvm.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=d1h5h-fUyJtVvn0sldnq7D-gHWY0j2RGm2pTGsVKG1U&e=>
to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible
for updating
reviews.llvm.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=d1h5h-fUyJtVvn0sldnq7D-gHWY0j2RGm2pTGsVKG1U&e=>
so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from
figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > [1]
https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure.phabricator.com_D20030&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=rHnjNRJSx0k8k_I76J85elbqQYyQYs3YXveJsktbcco&e=>
>>>>>> >>> >
_______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>> > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e=>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e=>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>>>>>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg
State University
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e=>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e=>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e=>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Keith Smiley
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e=>
_______________________________________________
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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200622/e8290832/attachment-0001.html>