similar to: Phabricator not getting all comments sent by email?

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 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

GAH! Sigh.... :( That is indeed what it does. See stripQuotedText in src/applications/metamta/parser/PhabricatorMetaMTAEmailBodyParser.php if anyone's interested in hacking on php code, it looks like it might be fairly straightforward to have it strip only the lines starting with ">" after the "On ... wrote:" line. On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Tim Northover

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 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

I know you worked hard to make sure that updating a revision doesn't send email unless there is text typed into one of the boxes Manuel, but I think we should by default put some text into a box (and send the email unless the user deletes that text) when accepting a revision. Otherwise, the final LGTM can accidentally happen on Phab and not reach the mailing list (D4178 for example).

> On 2014-Jun-27, at 11:48, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > I know you worked hard to make sure that updating a revision doesn't send email unless there is text typed into one of the boxes Manuel, but I think we should by default put some text into a box (and send the

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 1:17 PM David Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > Hubert Tong <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> writes: > > >> I can see how having multiple patches up at once for review might speed > >> things up. But what if a very first patch in a series needs major > >> changes and that affects every single following patch? The

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > I don't like the lack attached patch files on the mailing list to do a > normal review. Wait what? The emails I get from phab *have* an attached patch file. That was a hard requirement when we first set up Phabricator. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

> On 2014-Jun-27, at 11:50, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: >> I know you worked hard to make sure that updating a revision doesn't send >> email unless there is text typed into one of the boxes Manuel, but I think >> we should by default put some

Phab is back up - it's still a little slow (the mysql database we use is doing some cleanups). On Wed Dec 10 2014 at 5:07:07 PM suyog sarda <sardask01 at gmail.com> wrote: > And i was thinking something wrong with my proxy configuration :P > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > >> Heya, >> >> if you wonder

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:10, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Can you point to examples of that - where Phab links have been used to express non-mechanically-dependent patches? Not at the top of my head, but since that's not what we're talking about, I'll go to the next point. > Approval order isn't commit order - I'm more than happy to approve a

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 10:47, Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote: > > I still find Phab to be inscrutable. I don't use any of its advanced > > features. I'm a long-time contributor. > > I asked a similar question in this thread in the very beginning: What > actual problems do you have with Phab? There might be usable solutions > out there

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, 16 Jan 2020 at 18:45, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure where the idea that a patch series is anything other than that ^ came from. When I was talking about a patch series, it was/is with that definition in mind - ordered/dependent commits. I said "dependent series" to reinforce this idea that the kind of situation I was describing was one

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 17:47, Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote: > I'd say that helping people to improve their environment is better than > forcing others to worsen theirs. Note the difference: One side is trying to *help improve", while the other is *forcing to worsen*. This is really not helpful. --renato

It seems emails to me were not sent out due to them being held back by sendgrid spam protection. In case somebody else has this problem, this might be something to look into. Best, Tobias On Fri, Jul 14, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev wrote: > Phab was down during the night, should be back up now. When phab is down, > emails don't get sent out (all emails get sent out

Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > Granted, GitHub's UI is much "simpler" than Phab, but to my view, this > is not a problem, but a benefit. > > If we moved to GitHub PRs today, I wouldn't miss a thing. +1. I still find Phab to be inscrutable. I don't use any of its advanced features. I'm a long-time contributor. I

On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Chandler Carruth wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca >> <mailto:nicholas at mxc.ca>> wrote: >> >> I don't like the lack attached patch files on the mailing list to do >> a normal review. >> >>

Seems like everything is operational now! Let me know if anything seems off. In particular the email configuration took me a while to figure out, it isn't clear to me how Phab was possibly receiving email before? I upgraded the VM without changing the Phabricator version, I'll likely look into upgrading Phabricator itself next weekend. -- Mehdi On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 9:02 PM Mehdi