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

This is a revision of the previous RFC[1].  This RFC limits the scope to
pre-commit reviews only.



Statement:

Our current code review policy states[2]:

"Code reviews are conducted, in order of preference, on our web-based
code-review tool (see Code Reviews with Phabricator), by email on the relevant
project's commit mailing list, on the project's development list, or on
the bug tracker."

This proposal is to limit pre-commit code reviews only to Phabricator.  This
would apply to all projects in the LLVM monorepo.  With the change in effect,
the amended policy would read:

"Pre-commit code reviews are conducted on our web-based code-review tool
(see Code Reviews with Phabricator).  Post-commit reviews are conducted, in
order of preference, on Phabricator, by email on the relevant project's
commit mailing list, on the project's development list, or on the bug
tracker."



Current situation:

  1.  In a recent llvm-dev thread[3], Christian Kühnel pointed out that
pre-commit code reviews rarely originate via an email (most are started on
Phabricator), although, as others pointed out, email responses to an ongoing
review are not uncommon.  (That thread also contains examples of mishaps related
to the email-Phabricator interactions, or email handling itself.)
  2.  We have Phabricator patches that automatically apply email comments to the
Phabricator reviews, although reportedly this functionality is not fully
reliable[4,5].  This can cause review comments to be lost in the email traffic.



Benefits:

  1.  Single way of doing pre-commit code reviews: these code reviews are a key
part of the development process, and having one way of performing them would
make the process clearer and unambiguous.
  2.  Review authors and reviewers would only need to monitor one source of
comments without the fear that a review comment may end up overlooked.
  3.  This change simply codifies an existing practice.



Concerns:

  1.  Because of the larger variety, email clients may offer better
accessibility options than web browsers.





[1] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-May/150344.html

[2] https://llvm.org/docs/CodeReview.html#what-tools-are-used-for-code-review

[3] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150129.html

[4] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150136.html

[5] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150139.html





--

Krzysztof Parzyszek  kparzysz at quicinc.com<mailto:kparzysz at
quicinc.com>   AI tools development


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210517/ff82b0f0/attachment.html>

Seems reasonable to me.  I'm not strongly in favor, but since I was 
strongly opposed to the previous proposal, a "don't object" seemed
reasonable to share.

Philip

On 5/17/21 11:12 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev
wrote:
>
> This is a revision of the previous RFC[1].  This RFC limits the scope 
> to pre-commit reviews only.
>
> *Statement:*
>
> Our current code review policy states[2]:
>
> “Code reviews are conducted, in order of preference, on our web-based 
> code-review tool (see Code Reviews with Phabricator), by email on the 
> relevant project’s commit mailing list, on the project’s development 
> list, or on the bug tracker.”
>
> This proposal is to limit pre-commit code reviews only to 
> Phabricator.  This would apply to all projects in the LLVM monorepo.  
> With the change in effect, the amended policy would read:
>
> “Pre-commit code reviews are conducted on our web-based code-review 
> tool (see Code Reviews with Phabricator).  Post-commit reviews are 
> conducted, in order of preference, on Phabricator, by email on the 
> relevant project’s commit mailing list, on the project’s development 
> list, or on the bug tracker.”
>
> *Current situation:*
>
>  1. In a recent llvm-dev thread[3], Christian Kühnel pointed out that
>     pre-commit code reviews rarely originate via an email (most are
>     started on Phabricator), although, as others pointed out, email
>     responses to an ongoing review are not uncommon.  (That thread
>     also contains examples of mishaps related to the email-Phabricator
>     interactions, or email handling itself.)
>  2. We have Phabricator patches that automatically apply email
>     comments to the Phabricator reviews, although reportedly this
>     functionality is not fully reliable[4,5].  This can cause review
>     comments to be lost in the email traffic.
>
> *Benefits:*
>
>  1. Single way of doing pre-commit code reviews: these code reviews
>     are a key part of the development process, and having one way of
>     performing them would make the process clearer and unambiguous.
>  2. Review authors and reviewers would only need to monitor one source
>     of comments without the fear that a review comment may end up
>     overlooked.
>  3. This changesimply codifies an existing practice.
>
> *Concerns:*
>
>  1. Because of the larger variety, email clients may offer better
>     accessibility options than web browsers.
>
> [1] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-May/150344.html 
> <https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-May/150344.html>
>
> [2] 
> https://llvm.org/docs/CodeReview.html#what-tools-are-used-for-code-review 
>
<https://llvm.org/docs/CodeReview.html#what-tools-are-used-for-code-review>
>
> [3] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150129.html 
> <https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150129.html>
>
> [4] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150136.html 
> <https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150136.html>
>
> [5] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150139.html 
> <https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150139.html>
>
> -- 
>
> Krzysztof Parzyszek kparzysz at quicinc.com 
> <mailto:kparzysz at quicinc.com>   AI tools development
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210517/1b997698/attachment.html>

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:12 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> This is a revision of the previous RFC[1].  This RFC limits the scope to
> pre-commit reviews only.
>
>
>
> *Statement:*
>
> Our current code review policy states[2]:
>
> “Code reviews are conducted, in order of preference, on our web-based
> code-review tool (see Code Reviews with Phabricator), by email on the
> relevant project’s commit mailing list, on the project’s development list,
> or on the bug tracker.”
>
> This proposal is to limit pre-commit code reviews only to Phabricator.
> This would apply to all projects in the LLVM monorepo.  With the change in
> effect, the amended policy would read:
>
> “Pre-commit code reviews are conducted on our web-based code-review tool
> (see Code Reviews with Phabricator).
>
I'm with you here ^, this seems to document/formalize existing practice -
though does this accurately reflect all the projects in the mororepo? I get
the impression that mlir, maybe flang, etc might be doing reviews
differently?
> Post-commit reviews are conducted, in order of preference, on Phabricator,
>
This still seems like a change in practice that I'm not in favor of,
personally - due to the current divergence between email and phab review
feedback. Yes, this would be one way to unify it - but I'm not sure it's
necessarily the best one.

I'd suggest leaving this to a separate proposal so as not to
complicate/muddy the waters of the formalization of pre-commit review
practice.
> by email on the relevant project’s commit mailing list, on the project’s
> development list, or on the bug tracker.”
>
>
>
> *Current situation:*
>
>    1. In a recent llvm-dev thread[3], Christian Kühnel pointed out that
>    pre-commit code reviews rarely originate via an email (most are started
on
>    Phabricator), although, as others pointed out, email responses to an
>    ongoing review are not uncommon.  (That thread also contains examples of
>    mishaps related to the email-Phabricator interactions, or email handling
>    itself.)
>    2. We have Phabricator patches that automatically apply email comments
>    to the Phabricator reviews, although reportedly this functionality is
not
>    fully reliable[4,5].  This can cause review comments to be lost in the
>    email traffic.
>
>
>
> *Benefits:*
>
>    1. Single way of doing pre-commit code reviews: these code reviews are
>    a key part of the development process, and having one way of performing
>    them would make the process clearer and unambiguous.
>    2. Review authors and reviewers would only need to monitor one source
>    of comments without the fear that a review comment may end up
overlooked.
>    3. This change simply codifies an existing practice.
>
>
>
> *Concerns:*
>
>    1. Because of the larger variety, email clients may offer better
>    accessibility options than web browsers.
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-May/150344.html
>
> [2]
> https://llvm.org/docs/CodeReview.html#what-tools-are-used-for-code-review
>
> [3] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150129.html
>
> [4] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150136.html
>
> [5] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150139.html
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Krzysztof Parzyszek  kparzysz at quicinc.com   AI tools development
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210517/f03f85e1/attachment.html>

+1, makes sense to me.

-Chris
> On May 17, 2021, at 11:12 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via cfe-dev <cfe-dev
at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> This is a revision of the previous RFC[1].  This RFC limits the scope to
pre-commit reviews only.
>  
> Statement:
> Our current code review policy states[2]:
> “Code reviews are conducted, in order of preference, on our web-based
code-review tool (see Code Reviews with Phabricator), by email on the relevant
project’s commit mailing list, on the project’s development list, or on the bug
tracker.”
> This proposal is to limit pre-commit code reviews only to Phabricator. 
This would apply to all projects in the LLVM monorepo.  With the change in
effect, the amended policy would read:
> “Pre-commit code reviews are conducted on our web-based code-review tool
(see Code Reviews with Phabricator).  Post-commit reviews are conducted, in
order of preference, on Phabricator, by email on the relevant project’s commit
mailing list, on the project’s development list, or on the bug tracker.”
>  
> Current situation:
> In a recent llvm-dev thread[3], Christian Kühnel pointed out that
pre-commit code reviews rarely originate via an email (most are started on
Phabricator), although, as others pointed out, email responses to an ongoing
review are not uncommon.  (That thread also contains examples of mishaps related
to the email-Phabricator interactions, or email handling itself.)
> We have Phabricator patches that automatically apply email comments to the
Phabricator reviews, although reportedly this functionality is not fully
reliable[4,5].  This can cause review comments to be lost in the email traffic.
>  
> Benefits:
> Single way of doing pre-commit code reviews: these code reviews are a key
part of the development process, and having one way of performing them would
make the process clearer and unambiguous.
> Review authors and reviewers would only need to monitor one source of
comments without the fear that a review comment may end up overlooked.
> This change simply codifies an existing practice.
>  
> Concerns:
> Because of the larger variety, email clients may offer better accessibility
options than web browsers.
>  
>  
> [1] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-May/150344.html
<https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-May/150344.html>
> [2]
https://llvm.org/docs/CodeReview.html#what-tools-are-used-for-code-review
<https://llvm.org/docs/CodeReview.html#what-tools-are-used-for-code-review>
> [3] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150129.html
<https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150129.html>
> [4] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150136.html
<https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150136.html>
> [5] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150139.html
<https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150139.html>
>  
>  
> -- 
> Krzysztof Parzyszek  kparzysz at quicinc.com <mailto:kparzysz at
quicinc.com>   AI tools development
>  
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
<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/20210518/d235cada/attachment.html>