llvm dev - Jul 2014 - [LLVMdev] Usability of phabricator review threads for non-phab-users

On 01/07/2014 21:28, Alp Toker wrote:
> Specifically the problem I've been seeing is that people using the 
> website are unable to CC mailing list-based developers. As a result I 
> don't get copied in on responses to my review comments, and rarely get 
> any kind of direct mail with threading. You end up having to dig up 
> historic responses in the mailing list archive which becomes tedious.
>
> Often the CC on website reviews will include arbitrary names of people 
> who have website accounts, while excluding the actual code owners and 
> recent committers who you'd expect would be relevant. This leads me to 
> guess that the website is actively blocking the email addresses of 
> LLVM developers from getting added to the CC list unless they open an 
> account on the service.
To back this up, I get about a dozen mails a month saying "I can't find
you on Phabricator", to which I usually reply "Just enter my committer
name / email address".

  AFAICT people rarely do that, or the site blocks the email address and 
tries to make me create an account which I'm not planning to do at present.

The net result is that other people else ends up CC'ed because they do 
have an account on the website, and they attempt to review the code even 
though someone else requested the changes. At that point it becomes a 
matter of dealing with the fallout and things get pointlessly awkward :-/

Alp.
>
> In fact as far as I can tell, mailing list-based developers are 
> *completely* excluded from the CC list visible on the website. This 
> creates a really poor workflow with responses often getting missed, 
> and the right people not seeing patches (and conversely, it looks like 
> people who aren't really relevant end up getting pressured into 
> reviewing a patch in some area).
>
> Alp.
>
>
>
> On 01/07/2014 14:11, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>> Alp noted that the current setup on how phab reviews land on the list 
>> are not working for him. I'd be curious whether his setup is
special,
>> or whether there are more widespread problems. If this is more widely 
>> perceived as a problem, please speak up, and I'll make sure to 
>> prioritize the fixes (note that this is unrelated to the "lost
email"
>> problem - those are always highest priority and as far as I'm aware
>> we diagnosed and fixed all of them within 1-2 business days).
>>
>> If you have the feeling that the phab email workflow makes it hard 
>> for you to jump into reviews, keep track of reviews, or understand 
>> reviews if you're not a phab user, please reply to this thread. You
>> don't need to provide details, "+1", "please
fix", or "doesn't work
>> well for me" are all acceptable replies here - I want to get a 
>> feeling for the magnitude of the problem.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> /Manuel
>>
>
-- 
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
>
> On 01/07/2014 21:28, Alp Toker wrote:
>
>> Specifically the problem I've been seeing is that people using the
>> website are unable to CC mailing list-based developers. As a result I
don't
>> get copied in on responses to my review comments, and rarely get any
kind
>> of direct mail with threading. You end up having to dig up historic
>> responses in the mailing list archive which becomes tedious.
>>
>> Often the CC on website reviews will include arbitrary names of people
>> who have website accounts, while excluding the actual code owners and
>> recent committers who you'd expect would be relevant. This leads me
to
>> guess that the website is actively blocking the email addresses of LLVM
>> developers from getting added to the CC list unless they open an
account on
>> the service.
>>
>
> To back this up, I get about a dozen mails a month saying "I can't
find
> you on Phabricator", to which I usually reply "Just enter my
committer name
> / email address".
>
>  AFAICT people rarely do that, or the site blocks the email address and
> tries to make me create an account which I'm not planning to do at
present.
>
> The net result is that other people else ends up CC'ed because they do
> have an account on the website, and they attempt to review the code even
> though someone else requested the changes. At that point it becomes a
> matter of dealing with the fallout and things get pointlessly awkward :-/

Btw, I'm specifically looking for others who have similar problems to Alp
here - pretty much all other things mentioned are on my radar.

>
>
> Alp.
>
>
>
>> In fact as far as I can tell, mailing list-based developers are
>> *completely* excluded from the CC list visible on the website. This
creates
>> a really poor workflow with responses often getting missed, and the
right
>> people not seeing patches (and conversely, it looks like people who
aren't
>> really relevant end up getting pressured into reviewing a patch in some
>> area).
>>
>> Alp.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/07/2014 14:11, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>>
>>> Alp noted that the current setup on how phab reviews land on the
list
>>> are not working for him. I'd be curious whether his setup is
special, or
>>> whether there are more widespread problems. If this is more widely
>>> perceived as a problem, please speak up, and I'll make sure to
prioritize
>>> the fixes (note that this is unrelated to the "lost
email" problem - those
>>> are always highest priority and as far as I'm aware we
diagnosed and fixed
>>> all of them within 1-2 business days).
>>>
>>> If you have the feeling that the phab email workflow makes it hard
for
>>> you to jump into reviews, keep track of reviews, or understand
reviews if
>>> you're not a phab user, please reply to this thread. You
don't need to
>>> provide details, "+1", "please fix", or
"doesn't work well for me" are all
>>> acceptable replies here - I want to get a feeling for the magnitude
of the
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> /Manuel
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> http://www.nuanti.com
> the browser experts
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140701/36b90a1c/attachment.html>

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01/07/2014 21:28, Alp Toker wrote:
>>>
>>> Specifically the problem I've been seeing is that people using
the
>>> website are unable to CC mailing list-based developers. As a result
I don't
>>> get copied in on responses to my review comments, and rarely get
any kind of
>>> direct mail with threading. You end up having to dig up historic
responses
>>> in the mailing list archive which becomes tedious.
>>>
>>> Often the CC on website reviews will include arbitrary names of
people
>>> who have website accounts, while excluding the actual code owners
and recent
>>> committers who you'd expect would be relevant. This leads me to
guess that
>>> the website is actively blocking the email addresses of LLVM
developers from
>>> getting added to the CC list unless they open an account on the
service.
>>
>>
>> To back this up, I get about a dozen mails a month saying "I
can't find
>> you on Phabricator", to which I usually reply "Just enter my
committer name
>> / email address".
>>
>>  AFAICT people rarely do that, or the site blocks the email address and
>> tries to make me create an account which I'm not planning to do at
present.
>>
>> The net result is that other people else ends up CC'ed because they
do
>> have an account on the website, and they attempt to review the code
even
>> though someone else requested the changes. At that point it becomes a
matter
>> of dealing with the fallout and things get pointlessly awkward :-/
>
>
> Btw, I'm specifically looking for others who have similar problems to
Alp
> here - pretty much all other things mentioned are on my radar.
For the specific issue of threading, I don't find it problematic due
to my workflow:

All emails to the MLs get filtered to appropriate labels (GMail), any
thread with an email addressed to me is starred. So if someone replies
to a thread, but doesn't reply to me, that not a distinction my email
rules draw - it's just a thread I'm interested in, regardless.

But I totally understand that other people have other workflows that
may be more centered around replies to /them/ personally - useful when
you don't have time to read the full fire hose worth of LLVM mailing
lists.

Even then, I think the right workflow is usually to update the Phab
review, then reply to the person describing the changes. It's still
not perfect - your reply to them won't have the updated patch, it'll
be in a separate email to the list, but I usually assume that's "close
enough". But simply updating and saying "addressed the things in that
other email that was sent" is a bit too disconnected - it's valuable
to have the direct reply to the original feedback as well.

- David
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Alp.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In fact as far as I can tell, mailing list-based developers are
>>> *completely* excluded from the CC list visible on the website. This
creates
>>> a really poor workflow with responses often getting missed, and the
right
>>> people not seeing patches (and conversely, it looks like people who
aren't
>>> really relevant end up getting pressured into reviewing a patch in
some
>>> area).
>>>
>>> Alp.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2014 14:11, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alp noted that the current setup on how phab reviews land on
the list
>>>> are not working for him. I'd be curious whether his setup
is special, or
>>>> whether there are more widespread problems. If this is more
widely perceived
>>>> as a problem, please speak up, and I'll make sure to
prioritize the fixes
>>>> (note that this is unrelated to the "lost email"
problem - those are always
>>>> highest priority and as far as I'm aware we diagnosed and
fixed all of them
>>>> within 1-2 business days).
>>>>
>>>> If you have the feeling that the phab email workflow makes it
hard for
>>>> you to jump into reviews, keep track of reviews, or understand
reviews if
>>>> you're not a phab user, please reply to this thread. You
don't need to
>>>> provide details, "+1", "please fix", or
"doesn't work well for me" are all
>>>> acceptable replies here - I want to get a feeling for the
magnitude of the
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> /Manuel
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
>
> On 01/07/2014 21:28, Alp Toker wrote:
>
>> Specifically the problem I've been seeing is that people using the
>> website are unable to CC mailing list-based developers. As a result I
don't
>> get copied in on responses to my review comments, and rarely get any
kind
>> of direct mail with threading. You end up having to dig up historic
>> responses in the mailing list archive which becomes tedious.
>>
>> Often the CC on website reviews will include arbitrary names of people
>> who have website accounts, while excluding the actual code owners and
>> recent committers who you'd expect would be relevant. This leads me
to
>> guess that the website is actively blocking the email addresses of LLVM
>> developers from getting added to the CC list unless they open an
account on
>> the service.
>>
>
> To back this up, I get about a dozen mails a month saying "I can't
find
> you on Phabricator", to which I usually reply "Just enter my
committer name
> / email address".
>
>  AFAICT people rarely do that, or the site blocks the email address and
> tries to make me create an account which I'm not planning to do at
present.
>
Crazy idea, but we already have an adjunct service that we all successfully
use side-by-side with the mailing lists: bugzilla. Why not have a "log in
with bugzilla credentials" option? It might be easy to implement by just
having Phab piggyback off of bugzilla's auth cookie.

-- Sean Silva

> The net result is that other people else ends up CC'ed because they do
> have an account on the website, and they attempt to review the code even
> though someone else requested the changes. At that point it becomes a
> matter of dealing with the fallout and things get pointlessly awkward :-/
>
> Alp.
>
>
>
>> In fact as far as I can tell, mailing list-based developers are
>> *completely* excluded from the CC list visible on the website. This
creates
>> a really poor workflow with responses often getting missed, and the
right
>> people not seeing patches (and conversely, it looks like people who
aren't
>> really relevant end up getting pressured into reviewing a patch in some
>> area).
>>
>> Alp.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/07/2014 14:11, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>>
>>> Alp noted that the current setup on how phab reviews land on the
list
>>> are not working for him. I'd be curious whether his setup is
special, or
>>> whether there are more widespread problems. If this is more widely
>>> perceived as a problem, please speak up, and I'll make sure to
prioritize
>>> the fixes (note that this is unrelated to the "lost
email" problem - those
>>> are always highest priority and as far as I'm aware we
diagnosed and fixed
>>> all of them within 1-2 business days).
>>>
>>> If you have the feeling that the phab email workflow makes it hard
for
>>> you to jump into reviews, keep track of reviews, or understand
reviews if
>>> you're not a phab user, please reply to this thread. You
don't need to
>>> provide details, "+1", "please fix", or
"doesn't work well for me" are all
>>> acceptable replies here - I want to get a feeling for the magnitude
of the
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> /Manuel
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> http://www.nuanti.com
> the browser experts
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140701/b91ff12b/attachment.html>

On Jul 1, 2014, at 1:28 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com>
wrote:
>> 
>>> On 01/07/2014 21:28, Alp Toker wrote:
>>> Specifically the problem I've been seeing is that people using
the website are unable to CC mailing list-based developers. As a result I
don't get copied in on responses to my review comments, and rarely get any
kind of direct mail with threading. You end up having to dig up historic
responses in the mailing list archive which becomes tedious.
>>> 
>>> Often the CC on website reviews will include arbitrary names of
people who have website accounts, while excluding the actual code owners and
recent committers who you'd expect would be relevant. This leads me to guess
that the website is actively blocking the email addresses of LLVM developers
from getting added to the CC list unless they open an account on the service.
>> 
>> To back this up, I get about a dozen mails a month saying "I
can't find you on Phabricator", to which I usually reply "Just
enter my committer name / email address".
>> 
>>  AFAICT people rarely do that, or the site blocks the email address and
tries to make me create an account which I'm not planning to do at present.
> 
> Crazy idea, but we already have an adjunct service that we all successfully
use side-by-side with the mailing lists: bugzilla. Why not have a "log in
with bugzilla credentials" option? It might be easy to implement by just
having Phab piggyback off of bugzilla's auth cookie.
+1

I'd like single sign on for all LLVM development. We'd likely have to
rehost the servers to make that possible or do some OAuth thing.

Alex

> -- Sean Silva
> 
>> 
>> The net result is that other people else ends up CC'ed because they
do have an account on the website, and they attempt to review the code even
though someone else requested the changes. At that point it becomes a matter of
dealing with the fallout and things get pointlessly awkward :-/
>> 
>> 
>> Alp.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> In fact as far as I can tell, mailing list-based developers are
*completely* excluded from the CC list visible on the website. This creates a
really poor workflow with responses often getting missed, and the right people
not seeing patches (and conversely, it looks like people who aren't really
relevant end up getting pressured into reviewing a patch in some area).
>>> 
>>> Alp.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 01/07/2014 14:11, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>>>> Alp noted that the current setup on how phab reviews land on
the list are not working for him. I'd be curious whether his setup is
special, or whether there are more widespread problems. If this is more widely
perceived as a problem, please speak up, and I'll make sure to prioritize
the fixes (note that this is unrelated to the "lost email" problem -
those are always highest priority and as far as I'm aware we diagnosed and
fixed all of them within 1-2 business days).
>>>> 
>>>> If you have the feeling that the phab email workflow makes it
hard for you to jump into reviews, keep track of reviews, or understand reviews
if you're not a phab user, please reply to this thread. You don't need
to provide details, "+1", "please fix", or "doesn't
work well for me" are all acceptable replies here - I want to get a feeling
for the magnitude of the problem.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> /Manuel
>> 
>> -- 
>> http://www.nuanti.com
>> the browser experts
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140702/eb961010/attachment.html>