search for: phabricators

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: > >

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 what i can tell, 99.9% patches go via

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 Phabricator or the documentation

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-reviews

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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

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 bugs against our phab workflow on the llvm-bugtracker until we get a

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! On Fri, 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

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: > >

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 .s does have a way to carry the location.". Except

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, 18:55 Hubert Tong, <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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!

On 6/19/19 12:50 PM, 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

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 have a "sign up here" link. It

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <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

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

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 be a different issue. > > In the thread

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 10:59 PM, 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

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

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 if you are replying to out-of-line comments). 2) Typically in our Phabricator,

Hi, I've recently submitted a patch to llvm-commits (as requested by https://llvm.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

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:33 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:04 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton