similar to: [LLVMdev] Phabricator and private reviews

I have to agree with Alp here. I’ve seen a number of review threads that either seem to be missing emails or in which the emails arrive days in unintelligible orders. I don’t know that we need to cut off use of it, but we need to prioritize resolving this issue. —Owen On Jun 25, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think it's all

On 25/06/2014 21:18, Eli Bendersky wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com > <mailto:alp at nuanti.com>> wrote: > > > On 25/06/2014 21:03, Eli Bendersky wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com > <mailto:alp at nuanti.com> <mailto:alp at nuanti.com

On 25/06/2014 21:03, Eli Bendersky wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com > <mailto:alp at nuanti.com>> wrote: > > For whatever reason, patches posted to the Phabricator website > still aren't being sent to the mailing list, making it difficult > for us to review them. > > I've raised this issue a couple

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 >

Eric Christopher wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Owen Anderson<resistor at mac.com> wrote: >> I have to agree with Alp here. I’ve seen a number of review threads that either seem to be missing emails or in which the emails arrive days in unintelligible orders. > > Weird. I've only seen the one occasion earlier. > >> I don’t know that we need to cut

On 01/07/2014 21:28, Alp Toker wrote: > Specifically the problem I've been seeing is that people using the > website are unable to CC mailing list-based developers. As a result I > don't get copied in on responses to my review comments, and rarely get > any kind of direct mail with threading. You end up having to dig up > historic responses in the mailing list archive

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

"Duncan P. N. Exon Smith" <dexonsmith at apple.com> writes: >> On 2014-Jun-25, at 12:32, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: >> >> As I understand, some people legitimately use Phabricator for >> internal review, > > Is this is a use case we need to support on <http://reviews.llvm.org>? > >> while others *think* they're

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 >

Alp noted that the current setup on how phab reviews land on the list are not working for him. I'd be curious whether his setup is special, or whether there are more widespread problems. If this is more widely perceived as a problem, please speak up, and I'll make sure to prioritize the fixes (note that this is unrelated to the "lost email" problem - those are always highest

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). >

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 17/07/2014 20:27, Eric Christopher wrote: > Hi Alp, > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: >> Hi Manuel, >> >> Here's another commit authored through the web interface where no discussion >> or reviewership information is apparent on the mailing list. > If you look at the phab review, it's the same there. Does

Now that we've kick-started the LLVM OpenMP runtime discussion, I want to make a concrete proposal to get a test suite up and running for the LLVM OpenMP runtime. I don't think the current setup as an LLVM subproject is sustainable going forward without some form of testing support, automated or otherwise. The motivation: It's difficult to make changes to the source without some

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

On 7/1/14, 12:28 PM, Alp Toker wrote: > Specifically the problem I've been seeing is that people using the website are > unable to CC mailing list-based developers. As a result I don't get copied in on > responses to my review comments, and rarely get any kind of direct mail with > threading. You end up having to dig up historic responses in the mailing list > archive which

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: > >> I suspect that pulling in clang header fixes r201729, r202911 and r207606 >> to 3.4.1 will resolve libstdc++ / glibc compatibility issues people have >> been having with 3.4: >> >> r201729:

On 06/06/2014 02:33, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > Hi Alp, > > This warning should be fixed by r210301. However, consider > investigating why the frame size appears to be that large. I believe > we build this code with GCC as well and have seen no complaints > from its implementation of -Wframe-larger-than. CC'ing in llvmdev. Like Chandler said it could just be due to lack of

On 30/01/2014 22:57, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: >> On 30/01/2014 22:06, Daniel Berlin wrote: >>> Actually, the policy actually says the right thing, you removed a >>> sentence, which says: >>> "Please contact the oversight group for more details." >> >> To be clear, I

Hi Manuel, Here's another commit authored through the web interface where no discussion or reviewership information is apparent on the mailing list. All we see in cases like this are a few unthreaded list posts by the original author followed by an SVN revision number: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140714/226166.html For any patch that's submitted for