llvm dev - Jun 2014 - [LLVMdev] Another phabricator feature request...

I know you worked hard to make sure that updating a revision doesn't send
email unless there is text typed into one of the boxes Manuel, but I think
we should by default put some text into a box (and send the email unless
the user deletes that text) when accepting a revision. Otherwise, the final
LGTM can accidentally happen on Phab and not reach the mailing list (D4178
for example).

Thoughts?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140627/02e483e2/attachment.html>

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I know you worked hard to make sure that updating a revision doesn't
send
> email unless there is text typed into one of the boxes Manuel, but I think
> we should by default put some text into a box (and send the email unless
> the user deletes that text) when accepting a revision. Otherwise, the final
> LGTM can accidentally happen on Phab and not reach the mailing list (D4178
> for example).
>
> Thoughts?
>
I had hoped we can educate people using phab that only text they write gets
sent to the list, and that they should only send things to the list, and
not manage the state in phab. I think wanting to make it possible to make
the state in phab more in line with what's visible on the list would be
great, but I have problems finding the spare cycles currently (given that I
spend most of my phab time cycles with maintenance due to DMARC / other
email problems).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140627/cac74e25/attachment.html>

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com> wrote:
> I know you worked hard to make sure that updating a revision doesn't
send
> email unless there is text typed into one of the boxes Manuel, but I think
> we should by default put some text into a box (and send the email unless
the
> user deletes that text) when accepting a revision. Otherwise, the final
LGTM
> can accidentally happen on Phab and not reach the mailing list (D4178 for
> example).
>
> Thoughts?
>
Is there any reason not to have accepts always send an email?

- Michael Spencer

> On 2014-Jun-27, at 11:50, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com> wrote:
>> I know you worked hard to make sure that updating a revision
doesn't send
>> email unless there is text typed into one of the boxes Manuel, but I
think
>> we should by default put some text into a box (and send the email
unless the
>> user deletes that text) when accepting a revision. Otherwise, the final
LGTM
>> can accidentally happen on Phab and not reach the mailing list (D4178
for
>> example).
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
> 
> Is there any reason not to have accepts always send an email?
> 
> - Michael Spencer
If it's possible to make "accept" send an email with the text
"LGTM",
that would design away another source of discontinuity between the
list and Phab.

> On 2014-Jun-27, at 11:48, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com> wrote:
> I know you worked hard to make sure that updating a revision doesn't
send email unless there is text typed into one of the boxes Manuel, but I think
we should by default put some text into a box (and send the email unless the
user deletes that text) when accepting a revision. Otherwise, the final LGTM can
accidentally happen on Phab and not reach the mailing list (D4178 for example).
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> I had hoped we can educate people using phab that only text they write gets
sent to the list, and that they should only send things to the list, and not
manage the state in phab.
Is there a way of disabling the state management interface in phab
entirely?

Then the only way for people to "accept" something is by typing text
to that effect.
> I think wanting to make it possible to make the state in phab more in line
with what's visible on the list would be great, but I have problems finding
the spare cycles currently (given that I spend most of my phab time cycles with
maintenance due to DMARC / other email problems).
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev