similar to: [LLVMdev] Phabricator email

I'm not getting the error email you mention, but I have noticed it silently dropping replies (including my own on occasion). I haven't spotted anything the missing replies have in common. The web interface did just pop up with this though: Unhandled Exception ("Exception") Failed to proc_open(): proc_open(): fork failed - Cannot allocate memory > -----Original

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com>wrote: > I'm not getting the error email you mention, but I have noticed it > silently dropping replies (including my own on occasion). I haven't spotted > anything the missing replies have in common. > Dropping replies from the web interface or the mail interface? Also: does "dropping

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> > To: "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Clang Dev" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 7:50:38 AM > Subject: [LLVMdev] Phabricator email > > Hi folks, > > I seem to be getting an error on every reply to a

> Dropping replies from the web interface or the mail interface? > Also: does "dropping replies" mean that an email reply doesn't show up in the phab interface? > (that's currently "working as intended", until we find enough time to write a parser for inline > comment replies in mails) I mean that email replies don't always appear in the web interface.

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> > > To: "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Clang Dev" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 7:50:38 AM > > Subject: [LLVMdev]

On 11 December 2013 17:35, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: > I noticed a few contributors have been landing patches without responding to > my review comments. Oh, that happened to me too, but it turns out you have to press the "clowncopterize" after making comments inlilne, or Phabricator won't publish them. You can see them, we can't. cheers, --renato

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 11/12/2013 17:01, Manuel Klimek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Daniel Sanders > <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com <mailto:Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > I'm not getting the error email you mention, but I have noticed it > silently dropping replies (including my own on occasion). I > haven't spotted anything the missing replies

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 11/12/2013 17:48, Renato Golin wrote: > On 11 December 2013 17:35, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: >> I noticed a few contributors have been landing patches without responding to >> my review comments. > Oh, that happened to me too, but it turns out you have to press the > "clowncopterize" after making comments inlilne, or Phabricator won't >

On 11 December 2013 14:03, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > I'm working with the upstream guys to get this fixed. I'll try to see > whether we can up the priority... Thanks! --renato

On 19 May 2016 at 19:59, James Y Knight via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Does anyone know why phab sometimes misses replies sent by email? Usually > they make it through, but sometimes not. Doesn't seem to be a trivial thing to do: https://secure.phabricator.com/T7358 https://secure.phabricator.com/T5181 cheers, --renato

Does anyone know why phab sometimes misses replies sent by email? Usually they make it through, but sometimes not. For example, a recent email from Rafael (which I got through the llvm-commits list) seems to be addressed to the proper thing @ reviews.llvm.org, yet seems to have never made it onto the website. Not having not seen that response (because I was looking on the website), I ended up

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 13:43, Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > It's worth pointing out that GitHub is not able to do this properly, > either. The problem on GitHub's side is that while a pull request can > contain multiple commits, one cannot properly review those commits > individually, and it is not at all possible to approve individual

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:32 AM Renato Golin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 02:26, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > It's worth mentioning that Phabricator can read strings of the format > 'Depends on D1234' from commit messages and create those relationships for > you. >

Folks, For some reason, all new phabricator diffs are automatically including Amara, which is probably a bit annoying for him, but pointless. I believe it happens because his name is the first in the alphabetical order. Can someone have a look at what's going on? cheers, --renato

> On Jan 7, 2020, at 17:35, Jonas Devlieghere via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:16 PM Bill Wendling via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:59 PM Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Bill, >>> >>> On 01/07, Bill

> On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:36 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: >> On 6 March 2015 at 20:59, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >>> I think the only guideline we should have is that the first line should be >>> written as though it is an email

Second draft, being less strict. I kept the "body align to 80 col" because I say "should", not "must", and because we already have the same policy for code and documents. cheers, --renato -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: commit-msg-policy.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 2021 bytes Desc: not available URL:

Short update - the sending to the *-commits lists doesn't work yet - I'm currently working on fixing that (basically getting reviews at reviews.llvm.orgsubscribed to the list) On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > Nice work! It's a lot faster now, thanks! > > --renato > > PS: I'm not really bothered with a redirect