similar to: [LLVMdev] Phabricator sending empty state change emails for Audit

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 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 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

> 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 Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > > From: Manuel Klimek [mailto:klimek at google.com] > > Sent: 26 June 2014 10:40 > > To: Daniel Sanders > > Cc: Alp Toker; Eli Bendersky; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Phabricator and private reviews > > > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:34

"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

I have seen the "Too many recipients to the message" several times. A limit of 10 includes the patch author and the list leaving just 8 subscribers/reviewers is way too low. Given that these e-mails can be sent only by a Phab. user I'm not sure that spam is a problem at all: A potential spammer would first have to subscribe to Phab. then create a proper diff,... far easier just to

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:30 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > On 6/25/14, 5:15 PM, Vadim Chugunov wrote: > > 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. > > >

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

Moving this to llvmdev - it needs a bit of a wider audience. There are several issues with phabricator, and in the current state of things there's a huge amount of confusion on how to even report problems, let alone try to resolve them. Recently I started a thread about empty emails, was directed to the phabricator project's bug tracker, and told there that LLVM has customized

You were in sendgrid's bounce list (there must have been at least one bounce from your email to the apple servers). Please let me know if other people had similar problems. On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 6:11 PM Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Manuel, > > Thanks for the update it has some nice new features. There is one issue I > am seeing since the update though. I

Greetings llvm'ers, I'm working on an update to phabricator that brings our fork significantly closer to the upstream version, thus making maintenance much easier; this will allow us to upgrade more often. Upstream has fixed many issues and introduced new ways to customize the email flow, so a) while rolling out the new version I'll be fiddling with config settings; during that

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

> 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 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 Jul 8, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 8, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com <mailto:klimek at google.com>> wrote: >> >> You were in sendgrid's bounce list (there must have been at least one bounce from your email to the apple servers). Please let me know if other people had

I want to bubble out of this discussion, because most of the conversation has been about merit of various tools, how much the cloud license costs, etc. In my opinion, none of this actually matters. There are much larger strategic questions that we should be talking about instead: 1) Why is LLVM special? We are a tiny community compared to the larger GitHub community - anything that makes us

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 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. >

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 2:31 PM David Greene via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Emilio Cobos Álvarez <emilio at crisal.io> writes: > > > [1] or [2] are recentish examples that come to mind, but it happens > > fairly often. Of course for a bunch of simpler changes one revision is > > enough. > > I think you forgot to include links. :)