similar to: Phabricator default view

Ah, I tried switching the default, and it doesn't work as I expected. The "My activity" view isn't shown in the menu for logged-out users, but it's still selected as the homepage, so reviews.llvm.org is an error page. This seems like a blocker, I'll file a bug against phabricator. On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 2:38 AM Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote:

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

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. :)

Hi all. I'm assuming most people reading this email are familiar with LLVM's code review process <http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews> as well as LLVM Weekly, the development newsletter I've written and sent out every Monday since Jan 2014. Since that time, it's provided something of a "signal boost" for important mailing list discussions and

Relatedly, Phabricator doesn't stop you continuing a comment chain for reasons I have yet to follow, which Github sometimes does. Some others: 1) I believe Github also doesn't have an easy way to respond to multiple comments simultaneously, if you are not in "review" mode, (which is always the case if you are replying to out-of-line comments). 2) Typically in our Phabricator,

Folks, For some reason, all new phabricator diffs are automatically including Amara, which is probably a bit annoying for him, but pointless. I believe it happens because his name is the first in the alphabetical order. Can someone have a look at what's going on? cheers, --renato

> On 8 Jan 2016, at 15:43, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 1/8/2016 9:39 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> Huh? Under "Leap into action" on the bottom of the page, there is "Close >> revision". > > Hmm. Indeed. I don't know why I didn't notice it before. Oh well,

"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

Hi, At the last EuroLLVM, I gave a lightning talk about code review statistics on Phabricator reviews and what we could derive from that to try and reduce waiting-for-review bottlenecks. (see https://llvm.org/devmtg/2018-04/talks.html#Lightning_2). One of the items I pointed to is a script we've been using internally for a little while to try and match open Phabricator reviews to people who

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

Hi Manuel, It's been brought to my attention that my usage of the Phabricator Audit tool to track which commits have been reviewed is causing a large number of (almost) empty emails to be sent to the commit authors and anyone else added to the audit as a reviewer. Presumably there are some state change emails that we haven't blocked yet (e.g. the 'Accept commit' and 'Resign

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 Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> 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 http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html. > > Note that e-mail is still

I just saw this, and I have to say -- thanks, Kristof! Do you know if this is something that could be automated in Phabricator, instead of something that people run on their own? Or is the intent of this to be something that ran regularly (say, weekly or daily) that would email people (or the list) that could be doing the reviews for some of the open patches? On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:01 AM,

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. > > >

The current documentation talks about both the Phabricator review, and review as mail replies on -commits lists. It also talks about submitting patches to lists, with the subtext that it may be friendlier for outsiders. It is true that Phabricator has some entry threshold, larger than github, or maillists, so the attempt is not unwarranted. But from what i can tell, 99.9% patches go via

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 09:56:53PM +0000, Renato Golin via cfe-dev wrote: > GitHub PR is the "de facto standard", everyone knows, the entry cost > is practically zero. The UI is lean and missing features, but the > large availability of tooling (either targeting GitHub directly or > plain git) makes up for a lot of it. Just like with the "Everyone knows git", I

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

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com>wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> 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

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