llvm dev - May 2021 - [cfe-dev] [RFC] Deprecate email code reviews in favor of Phabricator

On Mon, 3 May 2021, Krzysztof Parzyszek via cfe-dev wrote:
> Potential future direction:
> 
> This section presents a potential future evolution of the review process. 
> Christian has conducted experiments suggesting that we can replace the
> XXX-commits mailing lists with notifications directly from Phabricator:
>
>  *  For each of the mailing lists, we create a "project" with the
same name
>     in Phabricator, e.g. [5]. Every Phabricator user can join/leave these
>     projects on their own. 
>  *  Everyone on these projects will receive the same email notifications
>     from Phabricator as we have on the mailing lists. This is configured
via
>     "Herald" rules in Phabricator, as today, e.g. [7].
>  *  Users can reply to these email notifications and Phabricator will
>     incorporate these responses with their email client, see [6] for some
>     example emails. Quoting and markup is supported as well.
>  *  We do NOT migrate the membership lists. Users need to sign up to the
>     projects manually. We will send an email with instructions to the
>     mailing lists once everything is set up.
>  *  The current XXX-commits mailing lists will be shut down
I don't mind formalizing that reviews are done on phabricator only. 
However following projects that way would, most probably, have one 
quite notable drawback compared with the current mailing list based 
approach:

Right now, it's easy to distinguish between mails requiring different 
levels of attention; ones with me in the To or CC fields are more visible 
and I try to read all of them. I have personal Herald rules that CC me on 
topics that I track. But I also browse the rest of the mails (quickly 
glancing usually only) for other topics I might be interested in.

My suspicion is that if the mail delivery is in the form of a personal 
subscription directly from Phabricator, it becomes much harder to 
distinguish mails that stem from just following a project as a whole, vs 
ones where I'm specifically CCd.

On the other hand I guess there can be other ways of filtering the mails 
do distinguish between those cases, so maybe it would be manageable?

// Martin

Strong, effectively blocking, -1 to shutting down -commits lists,
or affecting their current behaviour in any way.

The only thing i think you want to change is to codify that all new patches
should be submitted to review via phabricator.


Roman

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:36 PM Martin Storsjö via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 May 2021, Krzysztof Parzyszek via cfe-dev wrote:
>
> > Potential future direction:
> >
> > This section presents a potential future evolution of the review
process.
> > Christian has conducted experiments suggesting that we can replace the
> > XXX-commits mailing lists with notifications directly from
Phabricator:
> >
> >  *  For each of the mailing lists, we create a "project"
with the same name
> >     in Phabricator, e.g. [5]. Every Phabricator user can join/leave
these
> >     projects on their own.
> >  *  Everyone on these projects will receive the same email
notifications
> >     from Phabricator as we have on the mailing lists. This is
configured via
> >     "Herald" rules in Phabricator, as today, e.g. [7].
> >  *  Users can reply to these email notifications and Phabricator will
> >     incorporate these responses with their email client, see [6] for
some
> >     example emails. Quoting and markup is supported as well.
> >  *  We do NOT migrate the membership lists. Users need to sign up to
the
> >     projects manually. We will send an email with instructions to the
> >     mailing lists once everything is set up.
> >  *  The current XXX-commits mailing lists will be shut down
>
> I don't mind formalizing that reviews are done on phabricator only.
> However following projects that way would, most probably, have one
> quite notable drawback compared with the current mailing list based
> approach:
>
> Right now, it's easy to distinguish between mails requiring different
> levels of attention; ones with me in the To or CC fields are more visible
> and I try to read all of them. I have personal Herald rules that CC me on
> topics that I track. But I also browse the rest of the mails (quickly
> glancing usually only) for other topics I might be interested in.
>
> My suspicion is that if the mail delivery is in the form of a personal
> subscription directly from Phabricator, it becomes much harder to
> distinguish mails that stem from just following a project as a whole, vs
> ones where I'm specifically CCd.
>
> On the other hand I guess there can be other ways of filtering the mails
> do distinguish between those cases, so maybe it would be manageable?
>
> // Martin
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

Hi Martin,

I don't mind formalizing that reviews are done on phabricator
only.
> However following projects that way would, most probably, have one
> quite notable drawback compared with the current mailing list based
> approach:
>
> Right now, it's easy to distinguish between mails requiring different
> levels of attention; ones with me in the To or CC fields are more visible
> and I try to read all of them. I have personal Herald rules that CC me on
> topics that I track. But I also browse the rest of the mails (quickly
> glancing usually only) for other topics I might be interested in.
>
Having your own, custom Herald rules is always superior to general rules
for a project. They are naturally targeted towards your use cases. However
I wanted to offer a proper email integration for all users without having
to write their own rules. So the idea was to offer a "similar enough"
alternative for the XXX-commits mailing lists.

I just checked your rules [1] and you add yourself to the list of
subscribers for certain revisions. For these notifications you should be on
the "TO" section of the email, right?

 The emails going through the project [1] are sent as CC to me. There is a
ton of header attributes that could be used for filtering:

X-Phabricator-Cc: <PHID-PROJ-6nrw7h47scgenrj2njpx>

X-Herald-Rules: <74>, <368>, <665>, <667>, <671>,
700>, <576>, <615>, <770>

X-Phabricator-Stamps: actor(@bruno)
application(Differential)
> author(@bruno) herald(H74) herald(H368) herald(H576) herald(H615)
> herald(H665) herald(H667) herald(H671) herald(H700) herald(H770)
> monogram(D99434) object-type(DREV) phid(PHID-DREV-6ivftbt7xso57bvmy2br)
> reviewer(@aralisza) reviewer(@delcypher) reviewer(@dvyukov)
> reviewer(@kubamracek) reviewer(@vitalybuka) reviewer(@yln)
> revision-status(needs-review) subscriber(@hoy) subscriber(@jfb)
> subscriber(@kubamracek) subscriber(@llvm-commits) subscriber(@lxfind)
> subscriber(@modimo) subscriber(@rjmccall) subscriber(@t.p.northover)
> subscriber(@wenlei) tag(#llvm) via(web)

Do you think this is good enough for filtering?

[1] https://reviews.llvm.org/H746
[2] https://reviews.llvm.org/H770


Best,
Christian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210504/d14771a5/attachment.html>