thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator Maintenance [Jun 2020]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev

2020-Jun-24 23:21 UTC

[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

I understand that keeping this within one company is easiest from an
organization perspective, so if Fangrui and Mehdi (and other Googlers) are able
to take this on, that’s great. If not, I can raise this internally at Facebook.
An estimate of the total costs incurred would be helpful for that, e.g. you
mentioned Sendgrid being a couple of hundred dollars a month.

Thanks,
Shoaib

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: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 5:41 AM
To: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>
Cc: LLVM Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

Answering multiple questions:
1. the maintenance cost (for our current setup) isn't super high, but
it's high enough that I wasn't able to find Googlers really willing to
take it on, and it's very bursty - I think overall, it's less than a 10%
project, but it can eat up a day or two at unspecific times; for example, we
currently would need a source upgrade, as I believe we have some auth methods
not working any more.
Mehdi & Fangrui, if you want to own this together, that would be the easiest
path forward. I am happy to continue to make sure sendgrid is paid for (which is
currently a couple hundred $ a month).

2. if I can't find Googlers willing to own this, we need to loop this
through somebody else, which, depending on the setup, can be a bit more up-front
work. For example, if FB was willing to take this on for the next 10 years ;)
and you'd find a couple of folks at FB, that might be fairly simple, while
the LLVM foundation is currently afaiu not set up to easily create funding even
for the relatively cheap cloud setup we need

3. Mehdi is correct, https://github.com/r4nt/phabricator/tree/llvm-production is
what's currently running; one of the next tasks would be to see whether we
can get rid of more of the customizations we have (I actually have no idea how
far we are, Eric is not on the team any more, and he's afaict been the last
person to upgrade phab)

High prio work items are:
- keep the server up to date & secure
- keep upgrading to newer Phab versions, reduce or maintain our diff to mainline

Thanks!
/Manuel


On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:04 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at
gmail.com<mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com>> wrote:



On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:25 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com<mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:15 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:33 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at
google.com<mailto:klimek at google.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:04 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=9P-x7k7eVVMR4DlfgeXAq8p-1R_cVMVqOek61HN60Ho&e=>
offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?
>>
>>
>> Last time I checked, they basically said they didn't want us (no
customizations, which LLVM folks still wanted).
>
>
> Well, if this is a deal breaker for us, then we can also exclude GitHub PR
as a replacement for now: I doubt they offer these customizations.
Not sure it's necessarily quite that clear-cut. LLVM folks might want
the customizations, but if Phab with customizations isn't maintained,
it might be a choice between Phab without those customizations (what
are they?)

I believe it is all there:
https://github.com/r4nt/phabricator/tree/llvm-production

As far as I know it is mostly about the interactions with the email workflow for
the *-commits@ mailing-lists, but Manuel knows best here :)

--
Mehdi



or GitHub, email, etc - which might be a different
choice/tradeoff.
> What are our alternatives? (other than going back to pure email for
reviews)
>
> --
> Mehdi
>
>
>>
>> Whatever we do, we need some volunteer who's willing to spend
multiple days on this (and potentially more going forward).
>> I'm currently trying to find a volunteer more than solutions.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ll1jFTtzmn4J2nolNST0I0aK1fLbo9yYSUg7mEvxBGs&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&e=>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=f_OxOIUmWlaz5vJyYSMPQbGFoGVcDPI53yN7RhkgzIA&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=f_OxOIUmWlaz5vJyYSMPQbGFoGVcDPI53yN7RhkgzIA&e=>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200624/843eaa86/attachment-0001.html>

Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev

2020-Jun-25 08:12 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

Mehdi, Fangrui: are you willing to take on maintenance?

Otherwise, Shoaib, the cost is currently:
~$300-350 / mo for sendgrid (300-350k emails / month)
~$2k / mo for cloud (we currently run on 1 machine O.O, plus storage &
backup)

If y'all care about the workflow but don't care about diffs in emails,
we
can switch to stock phab.
I can ask Phacility for a quote; stock phab comes with significantly
different emails though.

Re: patch chains - perhaps we can ask github on support for that?
I think what would help is somebody providing a doc with the features that
phab provides that github PR doesn't, so we can get some consensus on what
the diff is.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:21 AM Shoaib Meenai <smeenai at fb.com> wrote:
> I understand that keeping this within one company is easiest from an
> organization perspective, so if Fangrui and Mehdi (and other Googlers) are
> able to take this on, that’s great. If not, I can raise this internally at
> Facebook. An estimate of the total costs incurred would be helpful for
> that, e.g. you mentioned Sendgrid being a couple of hundred dollars a
month.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shoaib
>
>
>
> *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: *Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 5:41 AM
> *To: *Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *LLVM Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator Maintenance
>
>
>
> Answering multiple questions:
>
> 1. the maintenance cost (for our current setup) isn't super high, but
it's
> high enough that I wasn't able to find Googlers really willing to take
it
> on, and it's very bursty - I think overall, it's less than a 10%
project,
> but it can eat up a day or two at unspecific times; for example, we
> currently would need a source upgrade, as I believe we have some auth
> methods not working any more.
>
> Mehdi & Fangrui, if you want to own this together, that would be the
> easiest path forward. I am happy to continue to make sure sendgrid is paid
> for (which is currently a couple hundred $ a month).
>
>
>
> 2. if I can't find Googlers willing to own this, we need to loop this
> through somebody else, which, depending on the setup, can be a bit more
> up-front work. For example, if FB was willing to take this on for the next
> 10 years ;) and you'd find a couple of folks at FB, that might be
fairly
> simple, while the LLVM foundation is currently afaiu not set up to easily
> create funding even for the relatively cheap cloud setup we need
>
>
>
> 3. Mehdi is correct,
> https://github.com/r4nt/phabricator/tree/llvm-production is what's
> currently running; one of the next tasks would be to see whether we can get
> rid of more of the customizations we have (I actually have no idea how far
> we are, Eric is not on the team any more, and he's afaict been the last
> person to upgrade phab)
>
>
>
> High prio work items are:
>
> - keep the server up to date & secure
>
> - keep upgrading to newer Phab versions, reduce or maintain our diff to
> mainline
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> /Manuel
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:04 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:25 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:15 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:33 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at
google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:04 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev <
> cfe-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> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via
llvm-dev <
> 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=9P-x7k7eVVMR4DlfgeXAq8p-1R_cVMVqOek61HN60Ho&e=>
> offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?
> >>
> >>
> >> Last time I checked, they basically said they didn't want us
(no
> customizations, which LLVM folks still wanted).
> >
> >
> > Well, if this is a deal breaker for us, then we can also exclude
GitHub
> PR as a replacement for now: I doubt they offer these customizations.
>
> Not sure it's necessarily quite that clear-cut. LLVM folks might want
> the customizations, but if Phab with customizations isn't maintained,
> it might be a choice between Phab without those customizations (what
> are they?)
>
>
>
> I believe it is all there:
> https://github.com/r4nt/phabricator/tree/llvm-production
>
>
>
> As far as I know it is mostly about the interactions with the email
> workflow for the *-commits@ mailing-lists, but Manuel knows best here :)
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mehdi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> or GitHub, email, etc - which might be a different
> choice/tradeoff.
>
> > What are our alternatives? (other than going back to pure email for
> reviews)
> >
> > --
> > Mehdi
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Whatever we do, we need some volunteer who's willing to spend
multiple
> days on this (and potentially more going forward).
> >> I'm currently trying to find a volunteer more than solutions.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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> wrote:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct
email :)
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek
<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> wrote:
> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>> >>> Friendly ping
> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb
Alexandre Ganea
> >>>>> >>> <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>:
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> >
> >>>>> >>> > De : llvm-dev <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>; Manuel
> Klimek <klimek at google.com>
> >>>>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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> 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ll1jFTtzmn4J2nolNST0I0aK1fLbo9yYSUg7mEvxBGs&e=>
> >>>>> >>> >
_______________________________________________
> >>>>> >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>>>> >>> > 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&e=>
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>>>> > 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&e=>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
> >>>>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg
State
> University
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>>>> 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&e=>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>>> 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&e=>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> cfe-dev mailing list
> >>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=f_OxOIUmWlaz5vJyYSMPQbGFoGVcDPI53yN7RhkgzIA&e=>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=f_OxOIUmWlaz5vJyYSMPQbGFoGVcDPI53yN7RhkgzIA&e=>
>
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200625/32feac7a/attachment.html>

Zachary Turner via llvm-dev

2020-Jun-25 09:21 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

I can’t really provide a doc, but i can describe what I believe to be the
biggest problem.

In a GH PR, comments are associated with commit hashes.  If a commit hash
ceases to exist, so do all comments associated with it.  The comments are
quite literally destroyed and irretrievable.

What this means for LLVM is that everyone will have to completely stop
using history rewriting operations.  No more rebase, squash, amend, etc.

A common theme in LLVM development is carefully curating patch histories
for easy reviewability.  For example, someone might tell you to split a
patch up into two patches and have them reviewed separately.  If there are
dependent changes between the two, you have to choices:

1. You can split this into two commits on a single branch.
2. You can make 2 branches A and B, with B based off A.  Request a PR from
A into master and B into A.

If you do 1 and someone requests changes on A, you cannot rebase -i your
fixes so that they still appear in the diff for A, because that destroys
comments.

If you do 2 and someone requests changes on A, you then have to merge (not
rebase) those changes into B.  The problem is compounded the more pieces
you have to split your patch into and it becomes quite a maintenance
headache.

IMO, switching to GH PRs means abandoning LLVMs philosophy on incremental
development for the above reason.

One more interesting quirk of GitHub PR:  it is actually impossible to make
a comment on lines in a PR that aren’t changed as part of the PR (eg
surrounding code).  See
https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/284 which has been open a very long
time

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:13 AM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Mehdi, Fangrui: are you willing to take on maintenance?
>
> Otherwise, Shoaib, the cost is currently:
> ~$300-350 / mo for sendgrid (300-350k emails / month)
> ~$2k / mo for cloud (we currently run on 1 machine O.O, plus storage &
> backup)
>
> If y'all care about the workflow but don't care about diffs in
emails, we
> can switch to stock phab.
> I can ask Phacility for a quote; stock phab comes with significantly
> different emails though.
>
> Re: patch chains - perhaps we can ask github on support for that?
> I think what would help is somebody providing a doc with the features that
> phab provides that github PR doesn't, so we can get some consensus on
what
> the diff is.
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:21 AM Shoaib Meenai <smeenai at fb.com>
wrote:
>
>> I understand that keeping this within one company is easiest from an
>> organization perspective, so if Fangrui and Mehdi (and other Googlers)
are
>> able to take this on, that’s great. If not, I can raise this internally
at
>> Facebook. An estimate of the total costs incurred would be helpful for
>> that, e.g. you mentioned Sendgrid being a couple of hundred dollars a
month.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Shoaib
>>
>>
>>
>> *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: *Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 5:41 AM
>> *To: *Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>
>> *Cc: *LLVM Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, cfe-dev <cfe-dev
at lists.llvm.org
>> >
>> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator Maintenance
>>
>>
>>
>> Answering multiple questions:
>>
>> 1. the maintenance cost (for our current setup) isn't super high,
but
>> it's high enough that I wasn't able to find Googlers really
willing to take
>> it on, and it's very bursty - I think overall, it's less than a
10%
>> project, but it can eat up a day or two at unspecific times; for
example,
>> we currently would need a source upgrade, as I believe we have some
auth
>> methods not working any more.
>>
>> Mehdi & Fangrui, if you want to own this together, that would be
the
>> easiest path forward. I am happy to continue to make sure sendgrid is
paid
>> for (which is currently a couple hundred $ a month).
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. if I can't find Googlers willing to own this, we need to loop
this
>> through somebody else, which, depending on the setup, can be a bit more
>> up-front work. For example, if FB was willing to take this on for the
next
>> 10 years ;) and you'd find a couple of folks at FB, that might be
fairly
>> simple, while the LLVM foundation is currently afaiu not set up to
easily
>> create funding even for the relatively cheap cloud setup we need
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. Mehdi is correct,
>> https://github.com/r4nt/phabricator/tree/llvm-production is what's
>> currently running; one of the next tasks would be to see whether we can
get
>> rid of more of the customizations we have (I actually have no idea how
far
>> we are, Eric is not on the team any more, and he's afaict been the
last
>> person to upgrade phab)
>>
>>
>>
>> High prio work items are:
>>
>> - keep the server up to date & secure
>>
>> - keep upgrading to newer Phab versions, reduce or maintain our diff to
>> mainline
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> /Manuel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:04 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:25 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:15 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev
>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:33 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at
google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:04 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev <
>> cfe-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> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov
via llvm-dev <
>> 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=9P-x7k7eVVMR4DlfgeXAq8p-1R_cVMVqOek61HN60Ho&e=>
>> offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Last time I checked, they basically said they didn't want
us (no
>> customizations, which LLVM folks still wanted).
>> >
>> >
>> > Well, if this is a deal breaker for us, then we can also exclude
GitHub
>> PR as a replacement for now: I doubt they offer these customizations.
>>
>> Not sure it's necessarily quite that clear-cut. LLVM folks might
want
>> the customizations, but if Phab with customizations isn't
maintained,
>> it might be a choice between Phab without those customizations (what
>> are they?)
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe it is all there:
>> https://github.com/r4nt/phabricator/tree/llvm-production
>>
>>
>>
>> As far as I know it is mostly about the interactions with the email
>> workflow for the *-commits@ mailing-lists, but Manuel knows best here
:)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> or GitHub, email, etc - which might be a different
>> choice/tradeoff.
>>
>> > What are our alternatives? (other than going back to pure email
for
>> reviews)
>> >
>> > --
>> > Mehdi
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Whatever we do, we need some volunteer who's willing to
spend multiple
>> days on this (and potentially more going forward).
>> >> I'm currently trying to find a volunteer more than
solutions.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> 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> wrote:
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris'
correct email :)
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek
<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> wrote:
>> >>>>> >>>
>> >>>>> >>> Friendly ping
>> >>>>> >>>
>> >>>>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr
schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>> >>>>> >>> <alexandre.ganea at
ubisoft.com>:
>> >>>>> >>> >
>> >>>>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>> >>>>> >>> >
>> >>>>> >>> >
>> >>>>> >>> >
>> >>>>> >>> > De : llvm-dev
<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>;
>> Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>> >>>>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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> 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ll1jFTtzmn4J2nolNST0I0aK1fLbo9yYSUg7mEvxBGs&e=>
>> >>>>> >>> >
_______________________________________________
>> >>>>> >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >>>>> >>> > 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&e=>
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> >
_______________________________________________
>> >>>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >>>>> > 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&e=>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>> >>>>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint
Petersburg State
>> University
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >>>>> 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&e=>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >>>> 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&e=>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> >>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=f_OxOIUmWlaz5vJyYSMPQbGFoGVcDPI53yN7RhkgzIA&e=>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cfe-dev mailing list
>> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=f_OxOIUmWlaz5vJyYSMPQbGFoGVcDPI53yN7RhkgzIA&e=>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200625/9416d848/attachment.html>

Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev

2020-Jun-25 16:28 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:12 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
wrote:
> Mehdi, Fangrui: are you willing to take on maintenance?
>
Sure, let's work out a transition plan offline!

>
> Otherwise, Shoaib, the cost is currently:
> ~$300-350 / mo for sendgrid (300-350k emails / month)
> ~$2k / mo for cloud (we currently run on 1 machine O.O, plus storage &
> backup)
>
> If y'all care about the workflow but don't care about diffs in
emails, we
> can switch to stock phab.
> I can ask Phacility for a quote; stock phab comes with significantly
> different emails though.
>
I think it is a flat $12k/year above 50 users? (see:
https://www.phacility.com/pricing/ )

>
> Re: patch chains - perhaps we can ask github on support for that?
> I think what would help is somebody providing a doc with the features that
> phab provides that github PR doesn't, so we can get some consensus on
what
> the diff is.
>
Indeed, I'll try to start a doc on this.


>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:21 AM Shoaib Meenai <smeenai at fb.com>
wrote:
>
>> I understand that keeping this within one company is easiest from an
>> organization perspective, so if Fangrui and Mehdi (and other Googlers)
are
>> able to take this on, that’s great. If not, I can raise this internally
at
>> Facebook. An estimate of the total costs incurred would be helpful for
>> that, e.g. you mentioned Sendgrid being a couple of hundred dollars a
month.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Shoaib
>>
>>
>>
>> *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: *Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 5:41 AM
>> *To: *Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>
>> *Cc: *LLVM Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, cfe-dev <cfe-dev
at lists.llvm.org
>> >
>> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator Maintenance
>>
>>
>>
>> Answering multiple questions:
>>
>> 1. the maintenance cost (for our current setup) isn't super high,
but
>> it's high enough that I wasn't able to find Googlers really
willing to take
>> it on, and it's very bursty - I think overall, it's less than a
10%
>> project, but it can eat up a day or two at unspecific times; for
example,
>> we currently would need a source upgrade, as I believe we have some
auth
>> methods not working any more.
>>
>> Mehdi & Fangrui, if you want to own this together, that would be
the
>> easiest path forward. I am happy to continue to make sure sendgrid is
paid
>> for (which is currently a couple hundred $ a month).
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. if I can't find Googlers willing to own this, we need to loop
this
>> through somebody else, which, depending on the setup, can be a bit more
>> up-front work. For example, if FB was willing to take this on for the
next
>> 10 years ;) and you'd find a couple of folks at FB, that might be
fairly
>> simple, while the LLVM foundation is currently afaiu not set up to
easily
>> create funding even for the relatively cheap cloud setup we need
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. Mehdi is correct,
>> https://github.com/r4nt/phabricator/tree/llvm-production is what's
>> currently running; one of the next tasks would be to see whether we can
get
>> rid of more of the customizations we have (I actually have no idea how
far
>> we are, Eric is not on the team any more, and he's afaict been the
last
>> person to upgrade phab)
>>
>>
>>
>> High prio work items are:
>>
>> - keep the server up to date & secure
>>
>> - keep upgrading to newer Phab versions, reduce or maintain our diff to
>> mainline
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> /Manuel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:04 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:25 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:15 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev
>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:33 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at
google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:04 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev <
>> cfe-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> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov
via llvm-dev <
>> 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=9P-x7k7eVVMR4DlfgeXAq8p-1R_cVMVqOek61HN60Ho&e=>
>> offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Last time I checked, they basically said they didn't want
us (no
>> customizations, which LLVM folks still wanted).
>> >
>> >
>> > Well, if this is a deal breaker for us, then we can also exclude
GitHub
>> PR as a replacement for now: I doubt they offer these customizations.
>>
>> Not sure it's necessarily quite that clear-cut. LLVM folks might
want
>> the customizations, but if Phab with customizations isn't
maintained,
>> it might be a choice between Phab without those customizations (what
>> are they?)
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe it is all there:
>> https://github.com/r4nt/phabricator/tree/llvm-production
>>
>>
>>
>> As far as I know it is mostly about the interactions with the email
>> workflow for the *-commits@ mailing-lists, but Manuel knows best here
:)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> or GitHub, email, etc - which might be a different
>> choice/tradeoff.
>>
>> > What are our alternatives? (other than going back to pure email
for
>> reviews)
>> >
>> > --
>> > Mehdi
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Whatever we do, we need some volunteer who's willing to
spend multiple
>> days on this (and potentially more going forward).
>> >> I'm currently trying to find a volunteer more than
solutions.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> 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> wrote:
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris'
correct email :)
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek
<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> wrote:
>> >>>>> >>>
>> >>>>> >>> Friendly ping
>> >>>>> >>>
>> >>>>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr
schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>> >>>>> >>> <alexandre.ganea at
ubisoft.com>:
>> >>>>> >>> >
>> >>>>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>> >>>>> >>> >
>> >>>>> >>> >
>> >>>>> >>> >
>> >>>>> >>> > De : llvm-dev
<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>;
>> Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>> >>>>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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> 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=HAgfBPFfo9oOWhEy4OCUUP2n4iCoxmLk-StyjAbO_oo&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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ll1jFTtzmn4J2nolNST0I0aK1fLbo9yYSUg7mEvxBGs&e=>
>> >>>>> >>> >
_______________________________________________
>> >>>>> >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >>>>> >>> > 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&e=>
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> >
_______________________________________________
>> >>>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >>>>> > 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&e=>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>> >>>>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint
Petersburg State
>> University
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >>>>> 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&e=>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >>>> 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=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=ACUAN3fWOUwuQzLVRNc-TsqZ63HmaCGb_SL1dK04SHs&e=>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> >>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=f_OxOIUmWlaz5vJyYSMPQbGFoGVcDPI53yN7RhkgzIA&e=>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cfe-dev mailing list
>> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=lJwxc7o34UKit8nM2fj4O0ASyu1JnOqeXvhr24fX66Y&s=f_OxOIUmWlaz5vJyYSMPQbGFoGVcDPI53yN7RhkgzIA&e=>
>>
>>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200625/d9b0139c/attachment.html>

Apparently Analagous Threads

Search for more maybe matching threads

llvm dev - Jun 2020 - [cfe-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

Apparently Analagous Threads