llvm dev - Jan 2020 - [cfe-dev] Phabricator -> GitHub PRs?

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 6:09 AM Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of
John
> Marshall
> > via cfe-dev
> > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 7:04 AM
> > To: Jonas Devlieghere via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Phabricator -> GitHub PRs?
> >
> > On 8 Jan 2020, Jonas Devlieghere wrote:
> > > I believe that technically sending patches to the mailing list is
> > > still a valid way to get your code reviewed. Not everyone
monitors the
> > > mailing list actively though so that might turn out to be more
> > > frustrating than Phabricator.
> >
> > I can confirm that this is indeed frustrating.
> >
> > I am only a user of Clang (and a former very minor contributor to GCC)
> but
> > I was recently sufficiently piqued by a small Clang diagnostic
infelicity
> > that I looked into fixing it, and came up with what appears to this
> > neophyte to be a trivial 2-line fix. As a first-time contributor to
> Clang,
> > I read the instructions for contributing at
> > <http://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html>:
> >
> >       "Clang is a subproject of the LLVM Project, but has its own
mailing
> > lists because the communities have people with different interests.
The
> > two clang lists are:
> >       • cfe-commits - This list is for patch submission/discussion.
> >       [snip]"
> >
> > And at
<https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#sending-patches> (via
> > <http://clang.llvm.org/hacking.html#patches>: "To
contribute changes to
> > Clang see LLVM's Getting Started page"):
> >
> >       "We don’t currently accept github pull requests, so you’ll
need to
> > send patches either via emailing to llvm-commits, or, preferably, via
> > Phabricator."
> >
> > Having a trivial one-off patch to propose, and presented with a choice
of
> > creating a Phabricator account at llvm and learning how to use it or
> > simply sending the patch via email -- obviously I chose the latter
[1].
> > It's only been 10 days but there have been no replies and around
2000
> > other emails on the list since then. Of those ~2000, I noticed three
that
> > were not automatically generated -- one of which was a reply to
another
> > newbie, so well done Jonas Toth! [2]
> >
> > Apart from that one instance of a reply, it would appear that 99+% of
the
> > messages on cfe-commits these days are automatically generated and
hence
> > that approximately zero people are actively monitoring the mailing
list.
> > So it would probably be good to update the contributing instructions
to
> > reflect reality.
> >
> >     John
>
> I expect 99+% of the messages on cfe-commits are automatically generated,
> but that doesn't mean nobody reads the list.  I'm not the only one
who
> finds the Phabricator UI to be appallingly bad or even impenetrable, for
> anything more sophisticated than posting comments.  (I also have a recipe
> for posting new patches, learned through trial and many errors.)
> I certainly don't use the web UI for figuring out which patches to read
> and/or comment on; I use the mailing list for that.  Regretfully I
don't
> do much with the Clang sub-project.
>
> The protocol for proposed patches is effectively the same for emailed
> patches as for Phab patches: directly CC people who would appear to be
> appropriate reviewers, and reply with a "ping" every week or so
if there
> are no responses.  This will bump the patch up in the mailing list queue
> on the list, and (one hopes) the direct CC will be noticed by people who
> don't ordinarily read the list.
>
+1 to all that from me - I don't use Phab to manage my review queue - I use
the mailing list. I do skim through all the commits lists on a weekly
(well, I think it's been a couple of weeks now) basis & try to CC
relevant
people on reviews if they're not something I have the time/knowledge to
look at, etc.

- Dave
>
> HTH,
> --paulr
>
> >
> >
> > [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-
> > 20200120/302838.html
> > [2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-
> > 20200127/304742.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200131/c91ba7f0/attachment.html>

On 1/31/20 9:30 AM, David Blaikie via cfe-dev wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 6:09 AM Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev 
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
>
>
>
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org
>     <mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> On Behalf Of John
Marshall
>     > via cfe-dev
>     > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 7:04 AM
>     > To: Jonas Devlieghere via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>     <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>     > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Phabricator -> GitHub PRs?
>     >
>     > On 8 Jan 2020, Jonas Devlieghere wrote:
>     > > I believe that technically sending patches to the mailing
list is
>     > > still a valid way to get your code reviewed. Not everyone
>     monitors the
>     > > mailing list actively though so that might turn out to be
more
>     > > frustrating than Phabricator.
>     >
>     > I can confirm that this is indeed frustrating.
>     >
>     > I am only a user of Clang (and a former very minor contributor
>     to GCC) but
>     > I was recently sufficiently piqued by a small Clang diagnostic
>     infelicity
>     > that I looked into fixing it, and came up with what appears to
this
>     > neophyte to be a trivial 2-line fix. As a first-time contributor
>     to Clang,
>     > I read the instructions for contributing at
>     > <http://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html>:
>     >
>     >       "Clang is a subproject of the LLVM Project, but has its
>     own mailing
>     > lists because the communities have people with different
>     interests. The
>     > two clang lists are:
>     >       • cfe-commits - This list is for patch
submission/discussion.
>     >       [snip]"
>     >
>     > And at
>     <https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#sending-patches> (via
>     > <http://clang.llvm.org/hacking.html#patches>: "To
contribute
>     changes to
>     > Clang see LLVM's Getting Started page"):
>     >
>     >       "We don’t currently accept github pull requests, so
you’ll
>     need to
>     > send patches either via emailing to llvm-commits, or,
>     preferably, via
>     > Phabricator."
>     >
>     > Having a trivial one-off patch to propose, and presented with a
>     choice of
>     > creating a Phabricator account at llvm and learning how to use it
or
>     > simply sending the patch via email -- obviously I chose the
>     latter [1].
>     > It's only been 10 days but there have been no replies and
around
>     2000
>     > other emails on the list since then. Of those ~2000, I noticed
>     three that
>     > were not automatically generated -- one of which was a reply to
>     another
>     > newbie, so well done Jonas Toth! [2]
>     >
>     > Apart from that one instance of a reply, it would appear that
>     99+% of the
>     > messages on cfe-commits these days are automatically generated
>     and hence
>     > that approximately zero people are actively monitoring the
>     mailing list.
>     > So it would probably be good to update the contributing
>     instructions to
>     > reflect reality.
>     >
>     >     John
>
>     I expect 99+% of the messages on cfe-commits are automatically
>     generated,
>     but that doesn't mean nobody reads the list.  I'm not the only
one who
>     finds the Phabricator UI to be appallingly bad or even
>     impenetrable, for
>     anything more sophisticated than posting comments.  (I also have a
>     recipe
>     for posting new patches, learned through trial and many errors.)
>     I certainly don't use the web UI for figuring out which patches to
>     read
>     and/or comment on; I use the mailing list for that. Regretfully I
>     don't
>     do much with the Clang sub-project.
>
>     The protocol for proposed patches is effectively the same for emailed
>     patches as for Phab patches: directly CC people who would appear to be
>     appropriate reviewers, and reply with a "ping" every week or
so if
>     there
>     are no responses.  This will bump the patch up in the mailing list
>     queue
>     on the list, and (one hopes) the direct CC will be noticed by
>     people who
>     don't ordinarily read the list.
>
>
> +1 to all that from me - I don't use Phab to manage my review queue - 
> I use the mailing list.

Same for me. I use the mailing list, and skim everything. However, I 
don't have time to reply to everything, so unless it's something which I
really must follow very closely (or an email with no one cc'd, and 
obviously will need certain people cc'd), I'll wait for "ping"
emails to
see if it's something I can usefully help move along.

  -Hal

> I do skim through all the commits lists on a weekly (well, I think 
> it's been a couple of weeks now) basis & try to CC relevant people
on
> reviews if they're not something I have the time/knowledge to look at, 
> etc.
>
> - Dave
>
>
>     HTH,
>     --paulr
>
>     >
>     >
>     > [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-
>     > 20200120/302838.html
>     > [2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-
>     > 20200127/304742.html
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > cfe-dev mailing list
>     > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>     > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>     _______________________________________________
>     cfe-dev mailing list
>     cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>     https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-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/20200131/74b1c598/attachment.html>

On 01/31, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote:
> 
> On 1/31/20 9:30 AM, David Blaikie via cfe-dev wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 6:09 AM Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
> > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >     > -----Original Message-----
> >     > From: cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org
> >     <mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> On Behalf Of
John Marshall
> >     > via cfe-dev
> >     > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 7:04 AM
> >     > To: Jonas Devlieghere via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org
> >     <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
> >     > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Phabricator -> GitHub
PRs?
> >     >
> >     > On 8 Jan 2020, Jonas Devlieghere wrote:
> >     > > I believe that technically sending patches to the
mailing list is
> >     > > still a valid way to get your code reviewed. Not
everyone
> >     monitors the
> >     > > mailing list actively though so that might turn out to
be more
> >     > > frustrating than Phabricator.
> >     >
> >     > I can confirm that this is indeed frustrating.
> >     >
> >     > I am only a user of Clang (and a former very minor
contributor
> >     to GCC) but
> >     > I was recently sufficiently piqued by a small Clang
diagnostic
> >     infelicity
> >     > that I looked into fixing it, and came up with what appears
to this
> >     > neophyte to be a trivial 2-line fix. As a first-time
contributor
> >     to Clang,
> >     > I read the instructions for contributing at
> >     > <http://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html>:
> >     >
> >     >       "Clang is a subproject of the LLVM Project, but
has its
> >     own mailing
> >     > lists because the communities have people with different
> >     interests. The
> >     > two clang lists are:
> >     >       • cfe-commits - This list is for patch
submission/discussion.
> >     >       [snip]"
> >     >
> >     > And at
> >     <https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#sending-patches>
(via
> >     > <http://clang.llvm.org/hacking.html#patches>: "To
contribute
> >     changes to
> >     > Clang see LLVM's Getting Started page"):
> >     >
> >     >       "We don’t currently accept github pull requests,
so you’ll
> >     need to
> >     > send patches either via emailing to llvm-commits, or,
> >     preferably, via
> >     > Phabricator."
> >     >
> >     > Having a trivial one-off patch to propose, and presented with
a
> >     choice of
> >     > creating a Phabricator account at llvm and learning how to
use it or
> >     > simply sending the patch via email -- obviously I chose the
> >     latter [1].
> >     > It's only been 10 days but there have been no replies and
around
> >     2000
> >     > other emails on the list since then. Of those ~2000, I
noticed
> >     three that
> >     > were not automatically generated -- one of which was a reply
to
> >     another
> >     > newbie, so well done Jonas Toth! [2]
> >     >
> >     > Apart from that one instance of a reply, it would appear that
> >     99+% of the
> >     > messages on cfe-commits these days are automatically
generated
> >     and hence
> >     > that approximately zero people are actively monitoring the
> >     mailing list.
> >     > So it would probably be good to update the contributing
> >     instructions to
> >     > reflect reality.
> >     >
> >     >     John
> > 
> >     I expect 99+% of the messages on cfe-commits are automatically
> >     generated,
> >     but that doesn't mean nobody reads the list.  I'm not the
only one who
> >     finds the Phabricator UI to be appallingly bad or even
> >     impenetrable, for
> >     anything more sophisticated than posting comments.  (I also have a
> >     recipe
> >     for posting new patches, learned through trial and many errors.)
> >     I certainly don't use the web UI for figuring out which
patches to
> >     read
> >     and/or comment on; I use the mailing list for that. Regretfully I
> >     don't
> >     do much with the Clang sub-project.
> > 
> >     The protocol for proposed patches is effectively the same for
emailed
> >     patches as for Phab patches: directly CC people who would appear
to be
> >     appropriate reviewers, and reply with a "ping" every
week or so if
> >     there
> >     are no responses.  This will bump the patch up in the mailing list
> >     queue
> >     on the list, and (one hopes) the direct CC will be noticed by
> >     people who
> >     don't ordinarily read the list.
> > 
> > 
> > +1 to all that from me - I don't use Phab to manage my review
queue - I
> > use the mailing list.
> 
> 
> Same for me. I use the mailing list, and skim everything. However, I
don't
> have time to reply to everything, so unless it's something which I
really
> must follow very closely (or an email with no one cc'd, and obviously
will
> need certain people cc'd), I'll wait for "ping" emails to
see if it's
> something I can usefully help move along.
> 
>  -Hal
At some point, when I had a little more time, I searched the
(llvm-commits) mailing list for the word "ping" every few days.
Nowadays
I mostly look at my Phabricator dashboard (Active Revisions, recently
changed first) which is pretty full partially due to Herald rules. In
addition I scan the (llvm-commits) list, sorted by most recent thread,
which allows me to keep up with what is going on pretty easily.

Cheers,
  Johannes

> > I do skim through all the commits lists on a weekly (well, I think
it's
> > been a couple of weeks now) basis & try to CC relevant people on
reviews
> > if they're not something I have the time/knowledge to look at,
etc.
> > 
> > - Dave
> > 
> > 
> >     HTH,
> >     --paulr
> > 
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-
> >     > 20200120/302838.html
> >     > [2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-
> >     > 20200127/304742.html
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > cfe-dev mailing list
> >     > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> >     > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     cfe-dev mailing list
> >     cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> >     https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> 
> -- 
> Hal Finkel
> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

-- 

Johannes Doerfert
Researcher

Argonne National Laboratory
Lemont, IL 60439, USA

jdoerfert at anl.gov
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200202/3ea48268/attachment.sig>