[llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
Fri, 19 Jun 2020 23:44:57 -0000

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

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:35 PM Zachary Turner <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>
wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
>> <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> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <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> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via
llvm-dev <
>> 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> 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 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> 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
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> --
>> >>> Keith Smiley
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/d8797ec9/attachment.html>