[llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

Philip Reames via llvm-dev
Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:56:35 -0000

On 6/22/20 2:34 AM, Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev 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?

This really seems like a question for the board, rather than any
individual.  If you're resigning and the community values phab, having
the board weigh in on cost to support the tool seems worthwhile.  I
suspect that cost will be high enough that we will migrate to something
free, but we should at least have an informed discussion.

(In case it's not clear, "cost" above is specifically meant in
both the
financial and non-financial sense.  This might be a case where a
contractor is worth considering instead of relying solely on volunteer
labor.)

>
>
>     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 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 <http://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
>             <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
>             <http://reviews.llvm.org> . Since today that no longer
>             works as I don’t seem to get any reply from
>             reviews.llvm.org <http://reviews.llvm.org> when I’m
logged
>             into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the
>             issue of reviews.llvm.org <http://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
>             <http://reviews.llvm.org> to whatever latest Phabricator
>             release contains that patch.
>             >>>>>> >>> >
>             >>>>>> >>> > Not sure who’s
currently responsible for
>             updating reviews.llvm.org <http://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
>             <mailto: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
>             <mailto: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
>             <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>     https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-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/20200623/05d5bcf0/attachment.html>