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

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>

Hi Christian,

On Tue, 4 May 2021, Christian Kühnel wrote:
> 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?
No; for revisions where I'm only listed as a subscriber, I'm in CC, for 
revisions where I'm reviewer or author, I'm in the TO field.
>  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?
Hmm, maybe. The issue is pretty much the reverse - if I'm listed as 
explicit subscriber but also subscribe to the "project", those mails
would
still have the same tags.

So is there a way to distinguish mails where I'm an explicit tagged 
subscriber (and thus in CC, also e.g. for reviews where I've taken part in 
discussion) and I'm also getting them via the project subscription (so the 
mail does have all the tags for subscription delivery)? Or would I be 
getting two mails for that situation, once for the project subscription 
and once for personal subscription to the individual review?

// Martin