similar to: [RFC] Documentation clarification: Phabricator, not the lists is the main entry point for new patches

On 6/19/19 12:50 PM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev wrote: I believe the history is that when Phab was initially introduced, we wrote the documentation this way to make things easy for reviewers who didn't want to change their workflow. But, I agree with your observations. The majority of code review seems to happen on Phabricator, and the best way to get traction on a new patch is to upload it to

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:29 PM David Greene via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> writes: > > > What is the practical plan to enforce the lack of merges? When we > > looked into this GitHub would not support this unless also forcing > > every change to go through a pull request (i.e. no pre-receive hooks >

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 3:29 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > > Please assume good faith -- I'm pretty sure this is simply a configuration mistake, since Mehdi just upgraded Phabricator to a new upstream revision last night. > Probably the default behavior changed in the new upstream version, and it just needs to be turned off. Yep, that's why i'm

On Fri, May 31, 2019, 10:02 AM Roman Lebedev via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:55 AM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > We should be able to control the noise of these > > >, but I also wonder whether we can switch to github reviews as part of > the git move :) >

I actually run a in-house Phabricator instance with 400+ users and multiple git repo including custom extension developments I also follow the Phabricator development quite closely because we upgrade every couple of weeks I’d be more than happy to help maintain the phab instance for LLVM MyDeveloperDay On Fri, 31 May 2019 at 09:19, Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

I tweaked the notifications yesterday, hopefully we don't see more spam storms. For filtering git refs: this is something that has changed substantially in Phabricator over the past couple of months, but I think I've managed to restrict notifications to only "master." (Although, again, this has changed a lot... getting this right depends on my own archaeological skills for

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:29 AM <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > One particular change: I've disabled notifications for the duplicate > Subversion meta-repos... so, for example, a commit to Clang will still get > 2 notifications (rL and rG). Before yesterday, this should have sent 3: one > each for rL, rG, and rC. Projects not in the monorepo will get > notifications

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 3:09 AM Roman Lebedev via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Strong -1 personally. Likewise, for many of the same reasons detailed below. ~Aaron > * What is the endgoal? To fully kill phab and move to github pullrequests? > it might be best to discuss *that* first. (did i miss an RFC?) > * Separation of attention - does everyone who

Hello, I sometime forget to set the "Repository" when uploading a patch on Phabricator, and that prevents from adding llvm-commits as a subscriber. [cid:image001.png at 01D61A45.E388B060] Would it make sense to set 'LLVM Github Monorepo' as a default? Or subscribe 'llvm-commits' automatically when creating a patch? Thanks! Alex. -------------- next part --------------

Sorry, I didn't notice this change of default last night. Thanks for fixing this! -- Mehdi On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 5:50 AM MyDeveloper Day via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I've made the change > > https://reviews.llvm.org/harbormaster/plan/5/ > > MyDeveloperDay <https://reviews.llvm.org/p/MyDeveloperDay/> changed the Hold > Drafts

-1 from me as well. GitHub UI feels extremely sluggish with large projects, forks feel like needless hurdles to jump over, especially for small patches - having to fork the entire monorepo, just to do a GitHub PR would be extremely cumbersome. Just recently I submitted a very tiny PR for PcapPlusPlus on GitHub which involved: 1). Forking the repository 2). Cloning the fork 3). Applying the patch

This is configured in the "pre-merge checks" build plan, the "Hold Drafts" needs to be set to "Never" I should be able to change this in the build plan if you want but I don't want to step on anyone's toes MyDeveloperDay On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:35 PM MyDeveloper Day <mydeveloperday at gmail.com> wrote: > See the "Draft Mode" changes,

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

I think that it's really important that we try to strike some balance here. Based on my experience, this thread, and offline conversations, two things seem clear to me: 1. Overall, Phabricator is a superior tool for managing code reviews and some related processes (although GitHub's tools certainly have some benefits, and both are getting better over time). 2. Not accepting GitHub PRs

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 Jun 30, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:44 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> The idea of adding an “incubation” stage to projects in the LLVM world seems to be positively received. I also noticed that we don’t really document the new project policy in

I don't intend to weigh in on either side, but just give a perspective on a few questions asked. >From an outsiders perspective, that list isn't what I'd typically describe as the workflow, since it makes "fork" and "branch" sound like difficult operations. This sounds akin to thinking that someone would reclone the svn repo before working on a new

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:32 AM Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 11/7/19 10:13 AM, Jameson Nash wrote: > > I don't intend to weigh in on either side, but just give a perspective on > a few questions asked. > > From an outsiders perspective, that list isn't what I'd typically describe > as the workflow, since it makes

Since the update, new revisions aren't posted immediately, but first appear as drafts. There's also this message: "This draft revision will be sent for review once this build passes: Build 82647: pre-merge checks." (https://reviews.llvm.org/D84742) As many have seen, pre-merge checks are flaky and just generally unusable, and this case was no exception, the build failed and the

I think we definitely will want to support github PRs, at the very least as an _option_, even if we continue running/preferring phabricator. Github PRs are how everyone who is not already super-involved in the llvm project is going to want to contribute changes, and we ought to be as welcoming as possible to such users. On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:15 PM Roman Lebedev via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at