[llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:40:11 -0000

Just to explain the background on what I'm trying to get here:
Currently, the way to get something going in LLVM is to have somebody who
wants it strongly enough to do it.
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 :)
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.

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.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:34 AM Manuel Klimek <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> 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>
>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20200622/3c355b25/attachment-0001.html>