similar to: [LLVMdev] Usability of phabricator review threads for non-phab-users

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 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 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

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 >

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

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

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 of times in the last few weeks. In practice this has a detrimental effect to the development workflow because it means that code is being seen only by a small group of individuals who have web accounts.

I understand that keeping this within one company is easiest from an organization perspective, so if Fangrui and Mehdi (and other Googlers) are able to take this on, that’s great. If not, I can raise this internally at Facebook. An estimate of the total costs incurred would be helpful for that, e.g. you mentioned Sendgrid being a couple of hundred dollars a month. Thanks, Shoaib From: llvm-dev

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

On 6/22/20 2:34 AM, Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:45 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab. > > You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request > by definition compares your working

There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab. You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request by definition compares your working copy against master. This is not very compatible with LLVMs approach to incremental development. For example, if you ask someone to break a large patch into 5 smaller patches, with Phab this is very easy because you can upload the diff

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:25 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:15 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com > wrote: > I think the send-email part of phab has yet to come back up. > Yes, restarting it would be very helpful. > > > Cheers, > > Jon > > > On 12/10/14 1:59 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote: > >> Phab is back up - it's still a little slow (the mysql database we use is

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 Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 2:16:00 AM Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Jonathan Roelofs < >> jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: >> >>> I think the send-email part of phab has yet to come back up. >>>

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 27 June 2014 21:53, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> > wrote: > > Then the only way for people to "accept" something is by typing text > > to that effect. > > If you don't "Accept" the patch, you can't close the issue. So, either

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

Another php type problem; can you please try again. Thanks! On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 1:37:32 PM Bruno Cardoso Lopes < bruno.cardoso at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm facing the same problem. > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:16 AM, suyog sarda <sardask01 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am facing problem while submitting patch on phab. All things go smooth > - >

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