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
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM, 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.Weird. I've only seen the one occasion earlier.> I don’t know that we need to cut off use of it, but we need to prioritize resolving this issue. >But if people are running into it then I definitely agree. -eric> —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 >
Eric Christopher wrote:> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM, 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. > > Weird. I've only seen the one occasion earlier. > >> I don’t know that we need to cut off use of it, but we need to prioritize resolving this issue. >> > > But if people are running into it then I definitely agree.I'm concerned that if people don't use it then its problems will never get discovered, prioritized or fixed? Nick PS. I caused a few of these recently, my email in phab was set to an account that isn't subscribed to llvm-commits, so my reviews were held for moderation. Fixed on my end.>> 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
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 >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140625/9a09ab52/attachment.html>
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>