similar to: Phabricator -> GitHub PRs?

What was the verdict? Any plans to move? I hate coding anything knowing that I'll have to use Phabricator. It's like nails on a chalkboard. -bw On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:13 PM Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 1/7/20 6:03 PM, Bill Wendling via llvm-dev wrote: > > Now that we're on GitHub, can we *please* move to GitHub PRs? As much as I > hate

Then perhaps those opposed could suggest how to use Phabricator/Arcanist so that I don't throw my keyboard through my monitor? -bw On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:33 PM Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 1/7/20 6:17 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > > What was the verdict? Any plans to move? I hate coding anything knowing > that I'll have to use Phabricator.

> 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 Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jonas Devlieghere <jonas at devlieghere.com> 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 Wendling

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 13:43, Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > It's worth pointing out that GitHub is not able to do this properly, > either. The problem on GitHub's side is that while a pull request can > contain multiple commits, one cannot properly review those commits > individually, and it is not at all possible to approve individual

I'm not sure a decision was already made as such. I think it's more that there was a flurry of conversation last time with lots of conflicting opinions, and then the conversation just fizzled out. FWIW, I like Phabricator but I'm willing to try GitHub. Overall I think we should take the same approach that eventually led to Phabricator being widely adopted: We should allow GitHub

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

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:59 PM Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > On 01/07, Bill Wendling via llvm-dev wrote: > > Then perhaps those opposed could suggest how to use Phabricator/Arcanist > so > > that I don't throw my keyboard through my monitor? > > Please explain your problems, w/o the hyperbole, so people can actually do >

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:30 AM David Greene via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Joerg Sonnenberger via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > > One typical case for a patch series is if you need infrastructure in a > > number of places in place first. Sending all changes at once allow > > others to see where you are going, independent

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 01:30:34PM -0600, David Greene via cfe-dev 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. :) > > > The use cases

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, 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

Hi All, I just posted a review with arcanist (which I'm fairly new to) and it included a build status. How it got there is totally opaque to me, but my workflow was: Using git+svn (following the setup in https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#for-developers-to-work-with-git-svn) make a change, commit with 'git commit', create review with 'air diff'. It would be cool if

> > In Github pull requests there is always a git commit that you can just >> feed to the build server. And you can be sure of what really gets merged. >> You review, build and test exactly the change that gets merged afterwards. >> > > How would that be true? Given that upstream keep changing during the > period of review? The commit is going to have to be rebased

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:24 PM David Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > Christian Kühnel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > >>> In Github pull requests there is always a git commit that you can just > >>> feed to the build server. And you can be sure of what really gets > merged. > >>> You review, build and test

On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 at 15:51, Hubert Tong <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote: > If you mean "amend" the message in the Web UI before merging, then yes, >> they let you change the message, but it's very easy to forget to do >> that. > > That's what I meant, yes. "Easy to forget" generally goes away when you repeat it enough times.

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

Hi David, On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:51 PM David Greene via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I would like to understand better how people use Phab's advanced > features and why. For example, what drives the need for patch series > and dependence relationships? Some walk-through examples would be very > helpful. Here's a somewhat more complex example of

Hi, One takeaway for me from the recent Phabricator vs Github PR discussions was that arc (arcanist) can be a pain to set up and may pose a hurdle for some contributors. I think those points could be addressed relatively easily by adding a llvm-patch script (or an even better name) that allows users to create and apply patches from reviews.llvm.org using Phabricators API. In my experience, the

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