llvm dev - May 2015 - [LLVMdev] Phabricator

Hi Manuel,

I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me know how I
can help (I’m not afraid of PHP).

— 
Mehdi


> On May 27, 2015, at 3:12 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
wrote:
> 
> Quick update from IRC chat:
> Justin (and anybody else who wants to) is going to file bugs against our
phab workflow on the llvm-bugtracker until we get a component for it. Help with
keeping our phab instance merged and implementing features we need would be
highly appreciated (let me know if you'd like to help with PHP hacking ;)
> 
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com
<mailto:mail at justinbogner.com>> wrote:
> Moving this to llvmdev - it needs a bit of a wider audience.
> 
> There are several issues with phabricator, and in the current state of
> things there's a huge amount of confusion on how to even report
> problems, let alone try to resolve them.
> 
> Recently I started a thread about empty emails, was directed to the
> phabricator project's bug tracker, and told there that LLVM has
> customized phabricator so there's nothing they (phab) can do. Soon
> after, the message I'm replying to below was sent to llvm-admin, and it
> was pointed out that they don't maintain phab, so there's nothing
*they*
> can do:
> 
> Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com <mailto:chandlerc at
google.com>> writes:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:31 PM Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org
<mailto:tonic at nondot.org>> wrote:
> >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 4:25 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at
braunis.de <mailto:matze at braunis.de>> wrote:
> >>> This happens to me as well from time to time. I wonder if
there is a
> >>> way to have phabricator add llvm-commits to CC as soon as
> >>> "repository llvm" or "project llvm" is
selected. Or maybe revisions
> >>> with an empty subscribers field could be rejected.
> >>
> >> llvm-admin doesn't administrate the phabricator. You need to
contact:
> >> Manuel Klimek or Chandler Carruth.
> >
> > This has been discussed before. If you look at the prior discussions
on
> > llvmdev about phabricator you should find lots of references to it.
> >
> > I don't want to repeat the entire discussion but the essence is
"sure, it
> > could be done, but someone must write the code to do it". The
code is posted
> > where you can get at it, we can even put it in an LLVM repository if
that
> > helps, but so far none have stepped up to write the code to make this
happen.
> > I donated hardware to get this whole thing started for a year, and
Manuel did
> > the much more time consuming work to get it up to the point it is
currently
> > at, but I don't think he has a lot more time to devote to it.
> 
> I appreciate the effort that you (Chandler) and Manuel have put into
> this, but I find this answer a bit lacking in important details.
> 
> Where is the code posted? Where is the documentation about that? The
> docs at http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__llvm.org_docs_Phabricator.html&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=qHj0853NIJxgsizaAYOr0vhQPWpAgRpQgywGYHT2CRU&s=JS0eDDtJFMTO7BpI-Nv4KZZhMUgYpbLSUFmycYIKjuo&e=>
don't tell me anything
> more than "Please let us know whether you like it and what could be
> improved!".
> 
> Most importantly, where can I file bugs about LLVM's phabricator
> instance?
> 
> > Fundamentally, we need folks in the community to contribute if they
have
> > significant problems with the tools.
> 
> Personally, as a reviewer, I find phabricator reviews strictly worse
> than sending a patch to the llvm-commits list. Off the top of my head,
> with phab:
> 
> - The patch doesn't always show up on the mailing list,
> - Replies to review comments and the patch that accompanies them come in
>   different emails,
> - Several emails show up in your inbox with nothing but a link, and no
>   indication why they were sent,
> - Comments and responses to comments sometimes show up twice - once from
>   the person who says them and another time from phab,
> - Patches are often (but not always) duplicated - both inline *and*
>   attached. This is bizarre, useless, and confuses tools like git-am.
> 
> With an email it's trivial to read the diff or to apply the patch to an
> LLVM checkout to look at in more detail, including building it or
> looking at the result in a text editor.
> 
> I realize that quite a few people find the web interface helpful, so
> I've refrained from asking people to post patches directly rather than
> using phab so far, but that *would* solve my problems with the tool. We
> at least need some clear information on how to file bugs and where to
> look if we want to try to fix the problems ourselves.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150527/a5e67c93/attachment.html>

Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> writes:
> Hi Manuel,
>
> I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me know
how
> I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP).
Chandler updated the llvm phabricator doc to point at what we're deploying:

  http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#status

That'll lead you here:

  https://github.com/r4nt/llvm-reviews
  https://github.com/r4nt/phabricator

And soon there'll be some bugs to squash in llvm.org/bugs ;)
> — 
> Mehdi
>
>     On May 27, 2015, at 3:12 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
wrote:
>    
>     Quick update from IRC chat:
>     Justin (and anybody else who wants to) is going to file bugs against
our
>     phab workflow on the llvm-bugtracker until we get a component for it.
Help
>     with keeping our phab instance merged and implementing features we need
>     would be highly appreciated (let me know if you'd like to help with
PHP
>     hacking ;)
>    
>     On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM Justin Bogner <mail at
justinbogner.com>
>     wrote:
>    
>         Moving this to llvmdev - it needs a bit of a wider audience.
>        
>         There are several issues with phabricator, and in the current state
of
>         things there's a huge amount of confusion on how to even report
>         problems, let alone try to resolve them.
>        
>         Recently I started a thread about empty emails, was directed to the
>         phabricator project's bug tracker, and told there that LLVM has
>         customized phabricator so there's nothing they (phab) can do.
Soon
>         after, the message I'm replying to below was sent to
llvm-admin, and
>         it
>         was pointed out that they don't maintain phab, so there's
nothing
>         *they*
>         can do:
>        
>         Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> writes:
>         > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:31 PM Tanya Lattner <tonic at
nondot.org>
>         wrote:
>         >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 4:25 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at
braunis.de>
>         wrote:
>         >>> This happens to me as well from time to time. I wonder
if there is
>         a
>         >>> way to have phabricator add llvm-commits to CC as soon
as
>         >>> "repository llvm" or "project
llvm" is selected. Or maybe
>         revisions
>         >>> with an empty subscribers field could be rejected.
>         >>
>         >> llvm-admin doesn't administrate the phabricator. You
need to
>         contact:
>         >> Manuel Klimek or Chandler Carruth.
>         >
>         > This has been discussed before. If you look at the prior
discussions
>         on
>         > llvmdev about phabricator you should find lots of references
to it.
>         >
>         > I don't want to repeat the entire discussion but the
essence is
>         "sure, it
>         > could be done, but someone must write the code to do it".
The code
>         is posted
>         > where you can get at it, we can even put it in an LLVM
repository if
>         that
>         > helps, but so far none have stepped up to write the code to
make
>         this happen.
>         > I donated hardware to get this whole thing started for a year,
and
>         Manuel did
>         > the much more time consuming work to get it up to the point it
is
>         currently
>         > at, but I don't think he has a lot more time to devote to
it.
>        
>         I appreciate the effort that you (Chandler) and Manuel have put
into
>         this, but I find this answer a bit lacking in important details.
>        
>         Where is the code posted? Where is the documentation about that?
The
>         docs at http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html don't tell me
anything
>         more than "Please let us know whether you like it and what
could be
>         improved!".
>        
>         Most importantly, where can I file bugs about LLVM's
phabricator
>         instance?
>        
>         > Fundamentally, we need folks in the community to contribute if
they
>         have
>         > significant problems with the tools.
>        
>         Personally, as a reviewer, I find phabricator reviews strictly
worse
>         than sending a patch to the llvm-commits list. Off the top of my
head,
>         with phab:
>        
>         - The patch doesn't always show up on the mailing list,
>         - Replies to review comments and the patch that accompanies them
come
>         in
>           different emails,
>         - Several emails show up in your inbox with nothing but a link, and
no
>           indication why they were sent,
>         - Comments and responses to comments sometimes show up twice - once
>         from
>           the person who says them and another time from phab,
>         - Patches are often (but not always) duplicated - both inline *and*
>           attached. This is bizarre, useless, and confuses tools like
git-am.
>        
>         With an email it's trivial to read the diff or to apply the
patch to
>         an
>         LLVM checkout to look at in more detail, including building it or
>         looking at the result in a text editor.
>        
>         I realize that quite a few people find the web interface helpful,
so
>         I've refrained from asking people to post patches directly
rather than
>         using phab so far, but that *would* solve my problems with the
tool.
>         We
>         at least need some clear information on how to file bugs and where
to
>         look if we want to try to fix the problems ourselves.
>    
>     _______________________________________________
>     LLVM Developers mailing list
>     LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>     http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

On 27 May 2015 at 12:29, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com>
wrote:
> Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> writes:
>> Hi Manuel,
>>
>> I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me
know how
>> I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP).
>
> Chandler updated the llvm phabricator doc to point at what we're
deploying:
>
>   http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#status
>
> That'll lead you here:
>
>   https://github.com/r4nt/llvm-reviews
>   https://github.com/r4nt/phabricator
>
> And soon there'll be some bugs to squash in llvm.org/bugs ;)
On a related note we're using Phabricator in FreeBSD, with a similar
workflow to LLVM and with a similar set of user opinions.  Some of our
users really like web-based review and some can't stand it, and so
we'll need to solve many of the same issues so that it's useful (or at
least tolerable) to all.  We haven't yet made a lot of usability
improvements, but our current set of changes can be found in our
github repo here: https://github.com/freebsd/phabricator

(As an aside, inspiration for setting up our Phabricator instance came
from LLVM's.)

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:41 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
wrote:
> Hi Manuel,
>
> I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me know
> how I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP).
>
See here:
https://github.com/r4nt/llvm-reviews/

Things that would help right now:
a) make it easier to start hacking on it (part of that would probably be to
create a small dockerfile around the scripts there; I don't think we'll
want to host with docker, because docker seems to not really match a "1
lamp machine" setup well)
b) help merging with phab upstream changes, testing that everything still
works after the merge, and send me a pull request; the closer we keep to
upstream the better our security is, and the easier it is to hack on
features
c) implement the things people have complained about: for example, figuring
out why we sometimes send empty mails to the llvm-dev mailing list would be
a good start

Thanks!
/Manuel

>
> —
> Mehdi
>
>
>
> On May 27, 2015, at 3:12 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
wrote:
>
> Quick update from IRC chat:
> Justin (and anybody else who wants to) is going to file bugs against our
> phab workflow on the llvm-bugtracker until we get a component for it. Help
> with keeping our phab instance merged and implementing features we need
> would be highly appreciated (let me know if you'd like to help with PHP
> hacking ;)
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM Justin Bogner <mail at
justinbogner.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Moving this to llvmdev - it needs a bit of a wider audience.
>>
>> There are several issues with phabricator, and in the current state of
>> things there's a huge amount of confusion on how to even report
>> problems, let alone try to resolve them.
>>
>> Recently I started a thread about empty emails, was directed to the
>> phabricator project's bug tracker, and told there that LLVM has
>> customized phabricator so there's nothing they (phab) can do. Soon
>> after, the message I'm replying to below was sent to llvm-admin,
and it
>> was pointed out that they don't maintain phab, so there's
nothing *they*
>> can do:
>>
>> Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> writes:
>> > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:31 PM Tanya Lattner <tonic at
nondot.org> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 4:25 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at
braunis.de> wrote:
>> >>> This happens to me as well from time to time. I wonder if
there is a
>> >>> way to have phabricator add llvm-commits to CC as soon as
>> >>> "repository llvm" or "project llvm" is
selected. Or maybe revisions
>> >>> with an empty subscribers field could be rejected.
>> >>
>> >> llvm-admin doesn't administrate the phabricator. You need
to contact:
>> >> Manuel Klimek or Chandler Carruth.
>> >
>> > This has been discussed before. If you look at the prior
discussions on
>> > llvmdev about phabricator you should find lots of references to
it.
>> >
>> > I don't want to repeat the entire discussion but the essence
is "sure,
>> it
>> > could be done, but someone must write the code to do it". The
code is
>> posted
>> > where you can get at it, we can even put it in an LLVM repository
if
>> that
>> > helps, but so far none have stepped up to write the code to make
this
>> happen.
>> > I donated hardware to get this whole thing started for a year, and
>> Manuel did
>> > the much more time consuming work to get it up to the point it is
>> currently
>> > at, but I don't think he has a lot more time to devote to it.
>>
>> I appreciate the effort that you (Chandler) and Manuel have put into
>> this, but I find this answer a bit lacking in important details.
>>
>> Where is the code posted? Where is the documentation about that? The
>> docs at http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html
>>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__llvm.org_docs_Phabricator.html&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=qHj0853NIJxgsizaAYOr0vhQPWpAgRpQgywGYHT2CRU&s=JS0eDDtJFMTO7BpI-Nv4KZZhMUgYpbLSUFmycYIKjuo&e=>
>> don't tell me anything
>> more than "Please let us know whether you like it and what could
be
>> improved!".
>>
>> Most importantly, where can I file bugs about LLVM's phabricator
>> instance?
>>
>> > Fundamentally, we need folks in the community to contribute if
they have
>> > significant problems with the tools.
>>
>> Personally, as a reviewer, I find phabricator reviews strictly worse
>> than sending a patch to the llvm-commits list. Off the top of my head,
>> with phab:
>>
>> - The patch doesn't always show up on the mailing list,
>> - Replies to review comments and the patch that accompanies them come
in
>>   different emails,
>> - Several emails show up in your inbox with nothing but a link, and no
>>   indication why they were sent,
>> - Comments and responses to comments sometimes show up twice - once
from
>>   the person who says them and another time from phab,
>> - Patches are often (but not always) duplicated - both inline *and*
>>   attached. This is bizarre, useless, and confuses tools like git-am.
>>
>> With an email it's trivial to read the diff or to apply the patch
to an
>> LLVM checkout to look at in more detail, including building it or
>> looking at the result in a text editor.
>>
>> I realize that quite a few people find the web interface helpful, so
>> I've refrained from asking people to post patches directly rather
than
>> using phab so far, but that *would* solve my problems with the tool. We
>> at least need some clear information on how to file bugs and where to
>> look if we want to try to fix the problems ourselves.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150528/33288a97/attachment.html>

On 27 May 2015 at 09:29, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com>
wrote:
> Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> writes:
>> Hi Manuel,
>>
>> I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me
know how
>> I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP).
>
> Chandler updated the llvm phabricator doc to point at what we're
deploying:
>
>   http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#status
>
> That'll lead you here:
>
>   https://github.com/r4nt/llvm-reviews
>   https://github.com/r4nt/phabricator
FWIW: which branch is the deployed llvm one?  llvm/master ? llvm/r4nt-master ?





-- 
Eitan Adler