search for: phabric

On 27 May 2015 at 12:29, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> writes: >> Hi Manuel, >> >> I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me know how >> I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP). > > Chandler updated the llvm phabricator doc to point at what we're deploying: > > http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#status > > That'll lead you here: > &...

The current documentation talks about both the Phabricator review, and review as mail replies on -commits lists. It also talks about submitting patches to lists, with the subtext that it may be friendlier for outsiders. It is true that Phabricator has some entry threshold, larger than github, or maillists, so the attempt is not unwarranted. But from w...

Dear LLVM / Clang community, we'd like to open the use of Phabricator as an optional tool for doing code reviews to a wider audience. Please feel free to start your code reviews by following the documentation at http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html. Note that e-mail is still the reference medium for code reviews. Please let me know about any problems with Phabr...

Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> writes: > Hi Manuel, > > I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me know how > I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP). Chandler updated the llvm phabricator doc to point at what we're deploying: http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#status That'll lead you here: https://github.com/r4nt/llvm-revie...

...; 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 o...

Hi Manuel, I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me know how I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP). — Mehdi > On May 27, 2015, at 3:12 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > > Quick update from IRC chat: > Justin (and anybody else who wants to) is going to file bu...

..., Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev <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> 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 investmen...

On 27 May 2015 at 09:29, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> writes: >> Hi Manuel, >> >> I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me know how >> I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP). > > Chandler updated the llvm phabricator doc to point at what we're deploying: > > http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#status > > That'll lead you here: > &...

Just ran into another thread where phabricator is seemingly ignoring replies. This one seems to be a different issue. In the thread "[PATCH] D20337: [MC] Support symbolic expressions in assembly directives", Phabricator seems to have completely ignored all of the replies starting with my (emailed) reply earlier today: "The ....

...; 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. 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 &...

...Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev wrote: I believe the history is that when Phab was initially introduced, we wrote the documentation this way to make things easy for reviewers who didn't want to change their workflow. But, I agree with your observations. The majority of code review seems to happen on Phabricator, and the best way to get traction on a new patch is to upload it to Phab and add a few reviewers by name. Regardless of what workflow reviewers would prefer, I think the documentation should recommend Phabricator over email to first time contributors, since, in my experience, it gets better re...

Hi Manuel, > we'd like to open the use of Phabricator as an optional tool for doing code > reviews to a wider audience. Please feel free to start your code reviews by > following the documentation at http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html. sorry for the silly question but... how do you sign up? The "sign up" section doesn't ha...

...ley <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)...

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > You might want to mention other functionality, like Herald, which I > think fills a need that a lot of developers have. > > Well, I guess since this message is on the list, I can just say: > Phabricator's "Herald" tool lets you (among other things) set up > actions to happen in response to certain events; one huge use case for > this is setting up alerts when parts of the tree that you are > interested in watching get changed: this alleviates the problem of > missing...

Would it make sense to officially have phabricator ignore all replies to the email thread, and instead require that all comments are done through phabricator itself? -Krzysztof On 5/25/2016 10:20 AM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: > Just ran into another thread where phabricator is seemingly ignoring > replies. This one seems to...

..., Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Dan, thanks for the feedback. > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 6:24 AM Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I recently tried reviewing/committing some of my code on >> Phabricator/Arcanist for the first time and I noticed that the docs >> [1] ask for feedback, so here it is! >> >> Phabricator functions reasonably well and it is a lot easier to write >> comments and respond to comments on particular parts of code as >> opposed to the old way...

You might want to mention other functionality, like Herald, which I think fills a need that a lot of developers have. Well, I guess since this message is on the list, I can just say: Phabricator's "Herald" tool lets you (among other things) set up actions to happen in response to certain events; one huge use case for this is setting up alerts when parts of the tree that you are interested in watching get changed: this alleviates the problem of missing the chance to post-c...

Relatedly, Phabricator doesn't stop you continuing a comment chain for reasons I have yet to follow, which Github sometimes does. Some others: 1) I believe Github also doesn't have an easy way to respond to multiple comments simultaneously, if you are not in "review" mode, (which is always the case...

...lvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#making-and-submitting-a-patch) and the mailing list answered with a notice that my message is held for moderator approval (with the reason: "Post by non-member to a members-only list"). I'm therefore wondering if I should've submitted my patch via Phabricator instead (looking at the activity in llvm-commits, it seems that most of the patches are submitted and reviewed by Phabricator). Best regards, Chris -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3854 bytes...

...ere: 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 >&...