What was the verdict? Any plans to move? I hate coding anything knowing that I'll have to use Phabricator. It's like nails on a chalkboard. -bw On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:13 PM Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:> > On 1/7/20 6:03 PM, Bill Wendling via llvm-dev wrote: > > Now that we're on GitHub, can we *please* move to GitHub PRs? As much as I > hate git, I hate Phabricator/Archanist even more. They're super clunky and > makes working in git that much worse. > > > FYI: We did have a thread on this a couple of months ago: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-November/136579.html > > -Hal > > > > -bw > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > -- > Hal Finkel > Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages > Leadership Computing Facility > Argonne National Laboratory > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200107/29be689e/attachment.html>
On 1/7/20 6:17 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: What was the verdict? Any plans to move? I hate coding anything knowing that I'll have to use Phabricator. It's like nails on a chalkboard. As you might imagine, not everyone agrees with you. My thoughts on how to move forward were here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-November/136591.html - and I do think that we should move forward. It will take some work, however. -Hal -bw On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:13 PM Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: On 1/7/20 6:03 PM, Bill Wendling via llvm-dev wrote: Now that we're on GitHub, can we *please* move to GitHub PRs? As much as I hate git, I hate Phabricator/Archanist even more. They're super clunky and makes working in git that much worse. FYI: We did have a thread on this a couple of months ago: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-November/136579.html -Hal -bw _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev -- Hal Finkel Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory -- Hal Finkel Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200108/e4f6ada8/attachment.html>
Then perhaps those opposed could suggest how to use Phabricator/Arcanist so that I don't throw my keyboard through my monitor? -bw On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:33 PM Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:> > On 1/7/20 6:17 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > > What was the verdict? Any plans to move? I hate coding anything knowing > that I'll have to use Phabricator. It's like nails on a chalkboard. > > > As you might imagine, not everyone agrees with you. My thoughts on how to > move forward were here: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-November/136591.html - and > I do think that we should move forward. It will take some work, however. > > -Hal > > > > -bw > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:13 PM Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> >> On 1/7/20 6:03 PM, Bill Wendling via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> Now that we're on GitHub, can we *please* move to GitHub PRs? As much as >> I hate git, I hate Phabricator/Archanist even more. They're super clunky >> and makes working in git that much worse. >> >> >> FYI: We did have a thread on this a couple of months ago: >> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-November/136579.html >> >> -Hal >> >> >> >> -bw >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >> -- >> Hal Finkel >> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages >> Leadership Computing Facility >> Argonne National Laboratory >> >> -- > Hal Finkel > Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages > Leadership Computing Facility > Argonne National Laboratory > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200107/6ac0a98e/attachment.html>
David Chisnall via llvm-dev
2020-Jan-08 11:57 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator -> GitHub PRs?
On 08/01/2020 00:33, Finkel, Hal J. via cfe-dev wrote:> As you might imagine, not everyone agrees with you. My thoughts on how > to move forward were here: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-November/136591.html - and > I do think that we should move forward. It will take some work, however.I would disagree with your characterisation that Phabricator is a superior tool: Phabricator implements a large superset of the features that most users want. This extra complexity provides a barrier to entry for a lot of users (in fact, this morning I had a colleague drop into my office for help having done something wrong with Phabricator and mangled the diff, and I was unable to help him). GitHub PRs implement a subset of the functionality that some people want. This causes a problem for people wanting who rely on the other features, most commonly reviewers. Phabricator has the same problem as git: the learning curve is steep and there are always new things to learn. It also has the same advantage as git: it probably can do anything that you want it to do, as long as you're willing to invest the time to learn. Favouring Phabricator over GitHub PRs is a decision to prioritise ease of use for some reviewers' workflows over that of patch contributors. That's fine, if it's a conscious decision (and not even one that I'd necessarily disagree with: code reviewers are probably the most scarce resource in the LLVM ecosystem and I'd be willing to lose some potential contributors if it increased the likelihood of timely and thorough code review), but it is misleading to claim that one tool is 'superior' in the abstract, without defining the requirements. David