similar to: Problem logging into phabricator using GitHub credentials

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

Manuel, On Oct 18, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > I hear you, but I'd be interested in why OAuth is a problem for you - as I said, if we have good arguments, the phab guys are really quick to come up with changes. I'm not deeply familiar with authentication schemes. I know you've already resolved the issue for me with a manually created

Thanks, I've created https://secure.phabricator.com/T1930. Until that is resolved I'll create accounts for anybody who doesn't want to use OAuth - just shoot me a mail. Cheers, /Manuel On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > Manuel, > > On Oct 18, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > > I

On 18 Oct 2012, at 23:03, Owen Anderson wrote: > For me, the concerns are much more about privacy than about security. I'm not really bothered by the idea of my Phabricator account being compromised, and I will use one-off credentials to ensure that a compromise of it will not impact other accounts that I care about more. > > What does bother me is the loss of privacy implied by

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek < kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 10/18/2012 1:32 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote: > >> >> If you strongly prefer not to use an OAuth provider, let me know and I >> can create a user for you, but I'd be interested in the reasons (and the >> upstream phab devs might be, too). >> > > Because

Hi Duncan, On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Manuel, > > > we'd like to open the use of Phabricator as an optional tool for doing >> code >> reviews to a wider audience. Please feel free to start your code reviews >> by >> following the documentation at

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 point is that using an OAuth provider should be an option, not a de-facto requirement. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of

Hey, On 20/10/2012, at 7:19 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Johan Bergström <bugs at bergstroem.nu> wrote: > > Dear LLVM / Clang community, > > > > we'd like to open the use of Phabricator as an optional tool for doing code > > reviews to a wider audience. Please feel free to start your code reviews by

Hi Manuel, > we'd like to open the use of Phabricator as an optional tool for doing code > reviews to a wider audience. Please feel free to start your code reviews by > following the documentation at http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html. sorry for the silly question but... how do you sign up? The "sign up" section doesn't have a "sign up here" link. It

On Oct 18, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > Thanks, I've created https://secure.phabricator.com/T1930. Amusingly, viewing that requires an OAuth login. --Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121018/7c32a93c/attachment.html>

On Oct 18, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > I hear you, but I'd be interested in why OAuth is a problem for you The privacy policies you would have to agree to are really scary, possibly even illegal in Europe. It seems like a completely unnecessary obstacle to participating in code review. Are you concerned about unauthorized reviews? Drive-by

On 10/18/2012 1:32 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote: > > If you strongly prefer not to use an OAuth provider, let me know and I > can create a user for you, but I'd be interested in the reasons (and the > upstream phab devs might be, too). Because Facebook is for posting political rants and funny pictures of cats. :) -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora

Dear LLVM / Clang community, we'd like to open the use of Phabricator as an optional tool for doing code reviews to a wider audience. Please feel free to start your code reviews by following the documentation at http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html. Note that e-mail is still the reference medium for code reviews. Please let me know about any problems with Phabricator or the documentation

> Dear LLVM / Clang community, > > we'd like to open the use of Phabricator as an optional tool for doing code > reviews to a wider audience. Please feel free to start your code reviews by > following the documentation at > http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html. > > > Note that e-mail is still the reference medium for code reviews. Please let > me know about

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Johan Bergström <bugs at bergstroem.nu> wrote: > > Dear LLVM / Clang community, > > > > we'd like to open the use of Phabricator as an optional tool for doing > code > > reviews to a wider audience. Please feel free to start your code reviews > by > > following the documentation at > >

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019, Sameer Sahasrabuddhe via llvm-dev wrote: > October 30, 2019 5:58 AM, "Alex L via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Oh, this explains it! Unfortunately one of our engineers made a mistake, and pushed the ref to >> wrong remote while resolving a merge conflict on https://github.com/apple/llvm-project (pushed to >>

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > > I hear you, but I'd be interested in why OAuth is a problem for you > > > The privacy policies you would have to agree to are really scary, possibly > even illegal in Europe. > > It seems

On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:51 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 18 Oct 2012, at 23:03, Owen Anderson wrote: > >> For me, the concerns are much more about privacy than about security. I'm not really bothered by the idea of my Phabricator account being compromised, and I will use one-off credentials to ensure that a compromise of it will not impact

> On Oct 30, 2019, at 5:57 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 10/30/2019 03:09 AM, Stephan Bergmann via llvm-dev wrote: >> You can apparently leave comments on GitHub commits (instead of commenting at Phabricator, or directly sending a reply to the relevant commit mailing list and relevant CCs). I once accidentally did that myself

As a workaround: The GitHub login is working. And you need a GitHub account anyway to contribute... On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:39 AM Jeremy Morse via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 4:21 PM Chris Palmer via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > See screenshot. :) Is this supposed to work, or should I