llvm dev - May 2016 - Phabricator not getting all comments sent by email?

Just ran into another thread where phabricator is seemingly ignoring
replies. This one seems to be a different issue.

In the thread "[PATCH] D20337: [MC] Support symbolic expressions in
assembly directives", Phabricator seems to have completely ignored all of
the replies starting with my (emailed) reply earlier today: "The .s does
have a way to carry the location.".

Except for the latest "test" email, where I moved the phab address
from the
"Cc" line to the "To" line. It seems to have gotten that. So
maybe it
ignores emails unless it sees itself in "To:"???

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 19 May 2016 at 19:59, James Y Knight via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > Does anyone know why phab sometimes misses replies sent by email?
Usually
> > they make it through, but sometimes not.
>
> Doesn't seem to be a trivial thing to do:
>
> https://secure.phabricator.com/T7358
>
> https://secure.phabricator.com/T5181
>
> cheers,
> --renato
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160525/d9dd2f5b/attachment.html>

Would it make sense to officially have phabricator ignore all replies to 
the email thread, and instead require that all comments are done through 
phabricator itself?

-Krzysztof



On 5/25/2016 10:20 AM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev
wrote:
> Just ran into another thread where phabricator is seemingly ignoring
> replies. This one seems to be a different issue.
>
> In the thread "[PATCH] D20337: [MC] Support symbolic expressions in
> assembly directives", Phabricator seems to have completely ignored all
> of the replies starting with my (emailed) reply earlier today: "The .s
> does have a way to carry the location.".
>
> Except for the latest "test" email, where I moved the phab
address from
> the "Cc" line to the "To" line. It seems to have gotten
that. So maybe
> it ignores emails unless it sees itself in "To:"???
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org
> <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 19 May 2016 at 19:59, James Y Knight via llvm-dev
>     <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>     > Does anyone know why phab sometimes misses replies sent by email?
Usually
>     > they make it through, but sometimes not.
>
>     Doesn't seem to be a trivial thing to do:
>
>     https://secure.phabricator.com/T7358
>
>     https://secure.phabricator.com/T5181
>
>     cheers,
>     --renato
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Would it make sense to officially have phabricator ignore all replies to
> the email thread, and instead require that all comments are done through
> phabricator itself?
>
The official stance is that people should be able to interact with reviews
from the mailing list without ever registering for/using Phab, so that
probably isn't acceptable.

>
> -Krzysztof
>
>
>
> On 5/25/2016 10:20 AM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote:
>
>> Just ran into another thread where phabricator is seemingly ignoring
>> replies. This one seems to be a different issue.
>>
>> In the thread "[PATCH] D20337: [MC] Support symbolic expressions
in
>> assembly directives", Phabricator seems to have completely ignored
all
>> of the replies starting with my (emailed) reply earlier today:
"The .s
>> does have a way to carry the location.".
>>
>> Except for the latest "test" email, where I moved the phab
address from
>> the "Cc" line to the "To" line. It seems to have
gotten that. So maybe
>> it ignores emails unless it sees itself in "To:"???
>>
>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org
>> <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 19 May 2016 at 19:59, James Y Knight via llvm-dev
>>     <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>     > Does anyone know why phab sometimes misses replies sent by
email?
>> Usually
>>     > they make it through, but sometimes not.
>>
>>     Doesn't seem to be a trivial thing to do:
>>
>>     https://secure.phabricator.com/T7358
>>
>>     https://secure.phabricator.com/T5181
>>
>>     cheers,
>>     --renato
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>>
>
> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted
> by The Linux Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160525/e7d7b921/attachment.html>

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:35:46AM -0500, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev
wrote:
> Would it make sense to officially have phabricator ignore all replies to
the
> email thread, and instead require that all comments are done through
> phabricator itself?
That would be even worse, IMO.

Joerg