similar to: [LLVMdev] Announcement: Phabricator for code reviews

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Johan Bergström <bugs at bergstroem.nu> wrote: > > 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 > >

Hey, On 20/10/2012, at 7:19 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Johan Bergström <bugs at bergstroem.nu> wrote: > > 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

Thanks, I've created https://secure.phabricator.com/T1930. Until that is resolved I'll create accounts for anybody who doesn't want to use OAuth - just shoot me a mail. Cheers, /Manuel On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > Manuel, > > On Oct 18, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > > I

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

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek < kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 10/18/2012 4:18 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > >> >> Facebook is not the only OAuth provider though. We should be able to >> support essentially any you would prefer if that's all. Manuel's comment >> still stands if OAuth is a problem. >> > > My

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

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com>wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > > 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

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

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > 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

Manuel, On Oct 18, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > I hear you, but I'd be interested in why OAuth is a problem for you - as I said, if we have good arguments, the phab guys are really quick to come up with changes. I'm not deeply familiar with authentication schemes. I know you've already resolved the issue for me with a manually created

On Oct 18, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > Thanks, I've created https://secure.phabricator.com/T1930. Amusingly, viewing that requires an OAuth login. --Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121018/7c32a93c/attachment.html>

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > > I hear you, but I'd be interested in why OAuth is a problem for you > > > The privacy policies you would have to agree to are really scary, possibly > even illegal in Europe. > > It seems

On Oct 18, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > I hear you, but I'd be interested in why OAuth is a problem for you The privacy policies you would have to agree to are really scary, possibly even illegal in Europe. It seems like a completely unnecessary obstacle to participating in code review. Are you concerned about unauthorized reviews? Drive-by

cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay De : llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <teemperor at gmail.com>; Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> Cc : llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Sean Silva > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Announcement: Phabricator for code reviews > > Anybody else having an opinion? > TBH I find it really creepy. It just seems fundamentally wrong (for > me, at least) for the program to be writing "Hi", which is a greeting >

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com> wrote: > Happened to me twice, it would be really nice if Phab would require > confirmation of patches created without CCing one of the two lists, > something like: > > "You have not CCed llvm-commits or cfe-commits, are you creating a private > patch?" > I filed

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > > As I understand, some people legitimately use Phabricator for internal > > review, ... > > MIPS currently do this for patches that only touch the MIPS backend > (details can be found at > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140602/220385.html). >

Hi all, I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error: > Expected to retrieve an "account"

Hi Duncan, On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > 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

In a recent review via Phabricator, I was receiving bounce notifications for mail being sent to llvm-commits because of "Too many recipients to the message", even though I am a subscriber. I wonder how common is that. On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > I am prioritizing email issues. Please always make sure to send them >