Hi,> Interesting, I don't read it that way :) I personally don't use arc to > commit.Sure the docs don't explicitly state that it's the only way. I just took that to be implied because the instructions for requesting a review provide multiple methods but the instructions for committing only mention using a single method.> Again, there is no one correct way. You can use arc, you can just manually > put together your commit message. If your commit messages are bad, somebody > will eventually start complaining post-commit ;) > > Feel free to send a patch to make it explicit that using arc is completely > optional. We mainly put it there because some people hand't heard of arc and > were handling their patches manually and complaining about the web workflow.Sure. In order to document the manual alternative I need to know what Phabricator looks for to work out it that it should close a review. Is the ``` Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/<REVISION> ``` line in the commit message what it looks for? Thanks, Dan.
On 12/28/2015 04:58 AM, Dan Liew via llvm-dev wrote:> Hi, > > >> Interesting, I don't read it that way :) I personally don't use arc to >> commit. > Sure the docs don't explicitly state that it's the only way. I just > took that to be implied because the instructions for requesting a > review provide multiple methods but the instructions for committing > only mention using a single method. > >> Again, there is no one correct way. You can use arc, you can just manually >> put together your commit message. If your commit messages are bad, somebody >> will eventually start complaining post-commit ;) >> >> Feel free to send a patch to make it explicit that using arc is completely >> optional. We mainly put it there because some people hand't heard of arc and >> were handling their patches manually and complaining about the web workflow. > Sure. In order to document the manual alternative I need to know what > Phabricator looks for to work out it that it should close a review. Is > the > > ``` > Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/<REVISION> > ``` > > line in the commit message what it looks for?Yes.> > Thanks, > Dan. > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> Sure. In order to document the manual alternative I need to know what >> Phabricator looks for to work out it that it should close a review. Is >> the >> >> ``` >> Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/<REVISION> >> ``` >> >> line in the commit message what it looks for? > > Yes.Thanks for the clarification.