[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
Tue, 23 Jun 2020 03:09:06 -0000

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:23 PM Fangrui Song via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On 2020-06-22, Shoaib Meenai via cfe-dev wrote:
> Manuel>Just to explain the background on what I'm trying to get
here:
> Manuel>Currently, the way to get something going in LLVM is to have
> somebody who wants it strongly enough to do it.
> Manuel>Back in the day, I wanted Phab strongly enough over email that I
> was willing to spend the *months* (over the years) it took to make this
> happen. And it was very worth it imo :)
> Manuel>Now, for me personally, the cost of Phab (security risk,
> maintenance, etc) is not worth the diff to github PRs, as I also see
> significant upside with github PRs to new contributors.
> Manuel>
> Manuel>Thus, my goal is to find somebody for whom the diff between
github
> PRs and Phab is large enough that they're willing to spend the time to
keep
> Phab up and running.
> >
> >How much ongoing work do you estimate Phabracitor requires? There’s the
> times the server falls over (e.g. database exceptions) and needs to be
> revived, there’s updates to Phabricator itself, there’s keeping the server
> updated, and probably a bunch of other work I’m not thinking of. About how
> much of a time commitment would keeping Phabricator going be, in your
> estimation?
>
> I am also in the camp that I find github's reviews annoying enough that
> I can't afford losing Phabricator for now. When squashing and merging,
> people clicking the button in the web view can easily add unneeded
> bullet points.
>
> It is not rare to see unneeded bullet points in the commit description
> like "Delete unused variable" "Fix typo" etc.
>
> I have done some system administration before. I'd like to share the
> work if someone else (Shaoib?) wants to take over the maintenance.
> A bit more details on what the maintenance work entails will help a lot.
>

Happy to help as well!


>
> >On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:34 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at
google.com<mailto:
> klimek at google.com>> wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:45 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
> >There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab.
> >
> >You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request by
> definition compares your working copy against master.
> >
> >This is not very compatible with LLVMs approach to incremental
> development.  For example, if you ask someone to break a large patch into 5
> smaller patches, with Phab this is very easy because you can upload the
> diff between N and N+1, then N+1 and N+2, etc.
> >
> >But with the GH workflow in order to get a review on N+4 you have to
> include all the changes from all the earlier revisions as well.
> >
> >The way around this is to fork and make 5 branches in your fork, then
> base each branch off the previous one.  But now what do you do if someone
> requests a change on the first one?
> >
> >Overall it’s a pretty serious limitation if you’re used to Phab, and I
> would evaluate very carefully if you’re thinking of going this route
> >
> >Are you volunteering to drive Phab maintenance and keep it up &
running?
> >
> >
> >On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:35 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at
roblox.com
> <mailto:zturner at roblox.com>> wrote:
> >Yes GH has a Squash & Merge option that works well.  It’s what we
use.
> We use the GH web interface for all of this though, if you’re supporting
> command line you may need some custom tooling to support this.
> >
> >The biggest thing is that it requires a lot of mental retraining to get
> out of the rebasing mindset for daily development
> >
> >On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:32 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com<mailto:
> dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
> ><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the
> issues with rebasing are very real.  Unless you only use merge commits you
> are going to have a very bad time
> >
> >Would it be practical to use merge commits during review (never
> >rebasing) & then rebasing/squashing to commit to the main line?
> >(guessing that might still make looking back at the history of the
> >review difficult?)
> >
> >- Dave
> >
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <keithbsmiley
at gmail.com
> <mailto:keithbsmiley at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved
significantly in the
> past few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over
> resolving / unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've
seen
> about GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To be clear: this wasn't an outdated comment here, I'm
using GitHub
> very frequently *right now* as I'm reviewing contributions to
TensorFlow.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I also believe there's significant value for newcomers
and casual
> contributors (like myself) in using the same tool as so many other major
> open source projects.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 13:04 Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
<
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via
llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton
Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto: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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review
is frustrating in
> comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled across
> updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and
> merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo
> history right now.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.phacility.com<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.phacility.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=v_EtlEr2Ks7GaS2wr9kUgFYgmGGsXiejr_aM_GeZh1U&e=>
> offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Mehdi
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> . 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?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek
via llvm-dev
> >>>>>>> <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto: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
> <mailto: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<mailto:teemperor at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>> Friendly ping
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr
schrieb Alexandre Ganea
> >>>>>>> >>> <alexandre.ganea at
ubisoft.com<mailto:
> alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>>:
> >>>>>>> >>> >
> >>>>>>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
> >>>>>>> >>> >
> >>>>>>> >>> >
> >>>>>>> >>> >
> >>>>>>> >>> > De : llvm-dev
<llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org<mailto:
> 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<mailto:
> teemperor at gmail.com>>; Manuel Klimek <klimek at
google.com<mailto:
> klimek at google.com>>
> >>>>>>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org<mailto:
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
> >>>>>>> >>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev]
Outdated Phabricator version on
> reviews.llvm.org<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=d1h5h-fUyJtVvn0sldnq7D-gHWY0j2RGm2pTGsVKG1U&e=>
> 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<mailto: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<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=d1h5h-fUyJtVvn0sldnq7D-gHWY0j2RGm2pTGsVKG1U&e=>
> . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from
> reviews.llvm.org<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=d1h5h-fUyJtVvn0sldnq7D-gHWY0j2RGm2pTGsVKG1U&e=>
> when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue
> of reviews.llvm.org<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=d1h5h-fUyJtVvn0sldnq7D-gHWY0j2RGm2pTGsVKG1U&e=>
> 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<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=d1h5h-fUyJtVvn0sldnq7D-gHWY0j2RGm2pTGsVKG1U&e=>
> to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
> >>>>>>> >>> >
> >>>>>>> >>> > Not sure who’s currently
responsible for updating
> reviews.llvm.org<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=d1h5h-fUyJtVvn0sldnq7D-gHWY0j2RGm2pTGsVKG1U&e=>
> 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<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure.phabricator.com_D20030&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=rHnjNRJSx0k8k_I76J85elbqQYyQYs3YXveJsktbcco&e>
>
> >>>>>>> >>> >
_______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> >>> > 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<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e>
>
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> >
_______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> > 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<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e>
>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
> >>>>>>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint
Petersburg State
> University
> >>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> 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<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e>
>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e>
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> 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<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e>
>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> --
> >>>> Keith Smiley
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e>
>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >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<
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=FoGsCICjgE6UWLw9CIP41RDjHyairJfa_grtWPIUev0&s=sDZ1tRSJIUZYUu6R5FHjzV-6mXxAeGBD_P1DxnqOQmQ&e>
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >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/20200622/70d7bc83/attachment.html>