On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, 18:55 Hubert Tong, <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote:> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of >> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay >> tuned for updates! >> > I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in > place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option > of Phabricator reviews was being dropped. The original post on this thread > indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the > availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to > move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away? >I don't think the choice is being taken away, but somebody who believes the cost is worth it has to be willing and able to take on the cost. I can see that that might feel the same if you'd prefer phab but can't shoulder the investment, but I think it's an important difference. We got Phab back in the day when I started to work on clang and decided that it's not a good use of my time to do email code reviews (and I had to fight a cultural battle to get it :) if somebody thinks the diff of GitHub PR to Phab is worth the ongoing investment & security risks, I'm very happy to hand it over.> >> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > >> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :) >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi folks, >> >> >> >> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a >> while now. >> >> >> >> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience. >> >> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR >> infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an >> investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are >> unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there >> are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that >> github PRs make easier. >> >> >> >> Thus, I see two options: >> >> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures >> out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other >> means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks >> outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a >> variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the >> migration, of course. >> >> >> >> 2. We switch to github PRs >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> /Manuel >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <teemperor at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Friendly ping >> >>> >> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea >> >>> <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>: >> >>> > >> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > De : llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> De la part de >> David Blaikie via llvm-dev >> >>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM >> >>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <teemperor at gmail.com>; Manuel >> Klimek <klimek at google.com> >> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> >>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on >> reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any >> upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this... >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > - Dave >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via >> llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > Hi all, >> >>> > >> >>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on >> reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to >> get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It >> tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, >> but when I try to login I just get the following error: >> >>> > >> >>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call >> to identify account, but failed. >> >>> > >> >>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google >> Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic >> (including this error message string) a year ago here [1] >> >>> > >> >>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest >> Phabricator release contains that patch. >> >>> > >> >>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org >> so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else >> from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken). >> >>> > >> >>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030 >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >> >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list >> >>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> >>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > LLVM Developers mailing list >> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >> >> >> -- >> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov >> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> https://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/20200619/7f20dcd6/attachment.html>
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:26 PM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:> > > On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, 18:55 Hubert Tong, <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of >>> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay >>> tuned for updates! >>> >> I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in >> place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option >> of Phabricator reviews was being dropped. The original post on this thread >> indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the >> availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to >> move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away? >> > > I don't think the choice is being taken away, but somebody who believes > the cost is worth it has to be willing and able to take on the cost. I can > see that that might feel the same if you'd prefer phab but can't shoulder > the investment, but I think it's an important difference. > > We got Phab back in the day when I started to work on clang and decided > that it's not a good use of my time to do email code reviews (and I had to > fight a cultural battle to get it :) if somebody thinks the diff of GitHub > PR to Phab is worth the ongoing investment & security risks, I'm very happy > to hand it over. >Thanks for having fought that cultural battle and your work since. I was responding mainly to say that we should not proceed with just assuming that Phabricator does not warrant further investment because GitHub PRs exist.> > >> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev >>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :) >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi folks, >>> >> >>> >> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a >>> while now. >>> >> >>> >> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience. >>> >> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR >>> infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an >>> investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are >>> unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there >>> are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that >>> github PRs make easier. >>> >> >>> >> Thus, I see two options: >>> >> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures >>> out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other >>> means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks >>> outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a >>> variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the >>> migration, of course. >>> >> >>> >> 2. We switch to github PRs >>> >> >>> >> Thoughts? >>> >> /Manuel >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <teemperor at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Friendly ping >>> >>> >>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea >>> >>> <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > De : llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> De la part de >>> David Blaikie via llvm-dev >>> >>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM >>> >>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <teemperor at gmail.com>; Manuel >>> Klimek <klimek at google.com> >>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >>> >>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on >>> reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any >>> upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this... >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > - Dave >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via >>> llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Hi all, >>> >>> > >>> >>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on >>> reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to >>> get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It >>> tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not >>> loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API >>> call to identify account, but failed. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google >>> Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic >>> (including this error message string) a year ago here [1] >>> >>> > >>> >>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest >>> Phabricator release contains that patch. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org >>> so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else >>> from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken). >>> >>> > >>> >>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030 >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list >>> >>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> >>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list >>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov >>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> https://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/20200619/f8422f14/attachment.html>
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 8:43 PM Hubert Tong < hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote:> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:26 PM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, 18:55 Hubert Tong, <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev < >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of >>>> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay >>>> tuned for updates! >>>> >>> I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs >>> in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the >>> option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped. The original post on this >>> thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that >>> affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community >>> is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being >>> taken away? >>> >> >> I don't think the choice is being taken away, but somebody who believes >> the cost is worth it has to be willing and able to take on the cost. I can >> see that that might feel the same if you'd prefer phab but can't shoulder >> the investment, but I think it's an important difference. >> >> We got Phab back in the day when I started to work on clang and decided >> that it's not a good use of my time to do email code reviews (and I had to >> fight a cultural battle to get it :) if somebody thinks the diff of GitHub >> PR to Phab is worth the ongoing investment & security risks, I'm very happy >> to hand it over. >> > Thanks for having fought that cultural battle and your work since. I was > responding mainly to say that we should not proceed with just assuming that > Phabricator does not warrant further investment because GitHub PRs exist. >I do agree. I would urge everyone to look at the incremental benefit as well as the incremental cost though. Phab being better overall (while also clearly being worse in some aspects) doesn't automatically imply that it's a good idea to keep it, given the cost & risk it poses.> > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev >>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :) >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi folks, >>>> >> >>>> >> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a >>>> while now. >>>> >> >>>> >> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience. >>>> >> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR >>>> infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an >>>> investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are >>>> unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there >>>> are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that >>>> github PRs make easier. >>>> >> >>>> >> Thus, I see two options: >>>> >> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and >>>> figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some >>>> other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give >>>> folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a >>>> variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the >>>> migration, of course. >>>> >> >>>> >> 2. We switch to github PRs >>>> >> >>>> >> Thoughts? >>>> >> /Manuel >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <teemperor at gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Friendly ping >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea >>>> >>> <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>: >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > De : llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> De la part de >>>> David Blaikie via llvm-dev >>>> >>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM >>>> >>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <teemperor at gmail.com>; Manuel >>>> Klimek <klimek at google.com> >>>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >>>> >>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on >>>> reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any >>>> upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this... >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > - Dave >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via >>>> llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > Hi all, >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on >>>> reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to >>>> get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. >>>> It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not >>>> loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error: >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API >>>> call to identify account, but failed. >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the >>>> Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that >>>> logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1] >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest >>>> Phabricator release contains that patch. >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating >>>> reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and >>>> maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly >>>> broken). >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030 >>>> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list >>>> >>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>> >>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list >>>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov >>>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>> https://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/20200619/a9705193/attachment-0001.html>