Brian Cain via llvm-dev
2021-Sep-30 23:04 UTC
[llvm-dev] Phabricator Creator Pulling the Plug
Does something like Rust's "bors" bot satisfy the herald rules need? re: #2 I have done this on GHE and it's mildly awkward but it does work. And yes normalizing force pushes is the unfortunate state of GitHub PRs. Comments are preserved. Code-anchored comments like review comments are marked as referring to out-of-date code, IIRC. On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 5:56 PM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:> We talked about this with the IWG (Infrastructure Working Group) just > last week coincidentally. > Two major blocking tracks that were identified at the roundtable > during the LLVM Dev Meeting exactly 2 years ago are still an issue > today: > > 1) Replacement for Herald rules. This is what allows us to subscribe > and track new revisions or commits based on paths in the repo or other > criteria. We could build a replacement based on GitHub action or any > other kind of service, but this is a bit tricky (how do you store > emails privately? etc.). I have looked around online but I didn't find > another OSS project (or external company) providing a similar service > for GitHub unfortunately, does anyone know of any? > > 2) Support for stacked commits. I can see how to structure this > somehow assuming we would push pull-request branches in the main repo > (with one new commit per branch and cascading the pull-requests from > one branch to the other), otherwise this will be a major regression > compared to the current workflow. > > What remains unknown to me is the current state of GitHub management > of comments across `git commit --amend` and force push to update a > branch. > > Others may have other items to add! > > -- > Mehdi > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:39 PM Brian Cain via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > How far are we from a workflow that leverages Github's Pull Requests? > Is there some consensus that it's a desired end goal, but some features are > missing? Or do we prefer to use a workflow like this for the long term? > > > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 4:54 PM Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > >> As I, and others have noticed, it seems that as of today, there’s some > certificate issue with arcanist. (See: > https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-September/153019.html) The > fix seems simple, and a PR is up, but looking through the PR activity, it > seems that the PR will not be accepted because Phabricator is no longer > being maintained. It seems that arc has become the first casualty of the > discontinuation of maintenance of phabricator. > >> > >> > >> > >> I know that arc is not universally used, but I think it’s a serious > blow to many people’s workflows. I think that MyDeveloperDay’s question > might have just become a bit more urgent. > >> > >> > >> > >> I suppose in the short-term, we could fork the phabricator repos in > order to fix little issues like this. Alternately, we should probably stop > recommending arcanist (unless we want to provide instructions on how to fix > any breakages that come along). > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Chris Tetreault > >> > >> > >> > >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of > MyDeveloper Day via llvm-dev > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 10:17 AM > >> To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; cfe-commits < > cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> > >> Subject: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Creator Pulling the Plug > >> > >> > >> > >> WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary > of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. > >> > >> All > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm a massive fan of Phabricator, and I know there is often lots of > contentious discussion about its relative merits vs github, > >> > >> > >> > >> But unless I missed this, was there any discussion regarding the recent > "Winding Down" announcement of Phabricator? and what it might mean for us > in LLVM > >> > >> > >> > >> See: > >> > >> > https://admin.phacility.com/phame/post/view/11/phacility_is_winding_down_operations/ > >> > >> https://www.phacility.com/phabricator/ > >> > >> > >> > >> Personally I'm excited by the concept of a community driven replacement > ( https://we.phorge.it/) . > >> > >> epriestley did a truly amazing job, it wasn't open to public > contributions. Perhaps more open development could lead to closing some of > the github gaps that were of concern. > >> > >> > >> > >> MyDeveloperDay > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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/20210930/900402a1/attachment.html>
Brian Cain via llvm-dev
2021-Sep-30 23:08 UTC
[llvm-dev] Phabricator Creator Pulling the Plug
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 6:04 PM Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote:> Does something like Rust's "bors" bot satisfy the herald rules need? >sorry, maybe I was thinking of the high-five bot. And it looks like that's not quite a match for herald.> re: #2 I have done this on GHE and it's mildly awkward but it does work. > > And yes normalizing force pushes is the unfortunate state of GitHub PRs. > Comments are preserved. Code-anchored comments like review comments are > marked as referring to out-of-date code, IIRC. > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 5:56 PM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > >> We talked about this with the IWG (Infrastructure Working Group) just >> last week coincidentally. >> Two major blocking tracks that were identified at the roundtable >> during the LLVM Dev Meeting exactly 2 years ago are still an issue >> today: >> >> 1) Replacement for Herald rules. This is what allows us to subscribe >> and track new revisions or commits based on paths in the repo or other >> criteria. We could build a replacement based on GitHub action or any >> other kind of service, but this is a bit tricky (how do you store >> emails privately? etc.). I have looked around online but I didn't find >> another OSS project (or external company) providing a similar service >> for GitHub unfortunately, does anyone know of any? >> >> 2) Support for stacked commits. I can see how to structure this >> somehow assuming we would push pull-request branches in the main repo >> (with one new commit per branch and cascading the pull-requests from >> one branch to the other), otherwise this will be a major regression >> compared to the current workflow. >> >> What remains unknown to me is the current state of GitHub management >> of comments across `git commit --amend` and force push to update a >> branch. >> >> Others may have other items to add! >> >> -- >> Mehdi >> >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:39 PM Brian Cain via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > >> > How far are we from a workflow that leverages Github's Pull Requests? >> Is there some consensus that it's a desired end goal, but some features are >> missing? Or do we prefer to use a workflow like this for the long term? >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 4:54 PM Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> As I, and others have noticed, it seems that as of today, there’s some >> certificate issue with arcanist. (See: >> https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-September/153019.html) >> The fix seems simple, and a PR is up, but looking through the PR activity, >> it seems that the PR will not be accepted because Phabricator is no longer >> being maintained. It seems that arc has become the first casualty of the >> discontinuation of maintenance of phabricator. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I know that arc is not universally used, but I think it’s a serious >> blow to many people’s workflows. I think that MyDeveloperDay’s question >> might have just become a bit more urgent. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I suppose in the short-term, we could fork the phabricator repos in >> order to fix little issues like this. Alternately, we should probably stop >> recommending arcanist (unless we want to provide instructions on how to fix >> any breakages that come along). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Chris Tetreault >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of >> MyDeveloper Day via llvm-dev >> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 10:17 AM >> >> To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; cfe-commits < >> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> >> >> Subject: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Creator Pulling the Plug >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be >> wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. >> >> >> >> All >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm a massive fan of Phabricator, and I know there is often lots of >> contentious discussion about its relative merits vs github, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> But unless I missed this, was there any discussion regarding the >> recent "Winding Down" announcement of Phabricator? and what it might mean >> for us in LLVM >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> See: >> >> >> >> >> https://admin.phacility.com/phame/post/view/11/phacility_is_winding_down_operations/ >> >> >> >> https://www.phacility.com/phabricator/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Personally I'm excited by the concept of a community driven >> replacement ( https://we.phorge.it/) . >> >> >> >> epriestley did a truly amazing job, it wasn't open to public >> contributions. Perhaps more open development could lead to closing some of >> the github gaps that were of concern. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> MyDeveloperDay >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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/20210930/cf738755/attachment.html>