similar to: Phabricator maintenance Sunday 7/5/2020

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

Hi, FYI, I'm taking Phabricator down for an upgrade right now. -- Mehdi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200727/4c1d87ac/attachment.html>

Thanks for the work! On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:53 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Phab is upgraded now. It was ~2 years since the last upgrade so we got a few features along the way. > > We may have regressed some aspects as well, I only tested the basic functionalities. > Let me know if you see anything behaving unexpectedly!

Could we ever consider adding https://github.com/r4nt/phabricator/tree/llvm-production as a new read/only observe Diffusion repository in reviews.llvm.org? I'd be happy to do code reviews? MyDeveloperDay On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 8:46 PM MyDeveloper Day <mydeveloperday at gmail.com> wrote: > Awesome, thanks for sharing > > Here is a patch (based off yours) but this adds the

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:25 AM James Henderson < jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > Thanks for the work too! > > Not specifically a regression, but since the upgrade, I find it annoying > now that when I want to do something in relation to an inline comment > (collapse it, reply to it etc), I now have to click on a drop-down menu in > the comment header bar to

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 11:04 AM MyDeveloper Day <mydeveloperday at gmail.com> wrote: > Out of interest are you keeping the local modifications in a fork of the > Phabricator source (llvm-phabricator)? Firstly we should be keeping any > changes we make in source control but also it's good to review those > changes. > I didn't innovate, Manuel set it up originally and

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:07 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > +Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> who's taking some (shared?) > ownership of Phabricator these days. > > Mehdi - was Phab updated recently (such that we might've picked up new > semantics)? > No: I upgraded the hardware and the OS, but not Phab itself yet. I have a test

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:25 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:15 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:33 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:04 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev

I understand that keeping this within one company is easiest from an organization perspective, so if Fangrui and Mehdi (and other Googlers) are able to take this on, that’s great. If not, I can raise this internally at Facebook. An estimate of the total costs incurred would be helpful for that, e.g. you mentioned Sendgrid being a couple of hundred dollars a month. Thanks, Shoaib From: llvm-dev

Has anyone else noticed Phabricator sending emails saying: This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state "Needs Review". when the review clearly has been accepted by someone? Some recent examples: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83952 https://reviews.llvm.org/D80116 https://reviews.llvm.org/D81267 Thanks, Jay.

I can’t really provide a doc, but i can describe what I believe to be the biggest problem. In a GH PR, comments are associated with commit hashes. If a commit hash ceases to exist, so do all comments associated with it. The comments are quite literally destroyed and irretrievable. What this means for LLVM is that everyone will have to completely stop using history rewriting operations. No

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:31 AM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Philip Reames via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 6/22/20 2:34 AM, Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:45 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

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 >

Hi, I'm interested in GSOC in general, but I missed this roundtable unfortunately. Any summary from this session? Thanks, -- Mehdi On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 7:19 PM Vassil Vassilev via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Round table on GSoC is a very good idea. Thanks for organizing! > > -- Vassil > On 10/22/19 12:51 AM, Anton Korobeynikov via cfe-dev wrote:

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:12 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > Mehdi, Fangrui: are you willing to take on maintenance? > Sure, let's work out a transition plan offline! > > Otherwise, Shoaib, the cost is currently: > ~$300-350 / mo for sendgrid (300-350k emails / month) > ~$2k / mo for cloud (we currently run on 1 machine O.O, plus storage & >

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 9:42 AM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 4, 2020, at 12:13, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 8:14 AM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com> wrote: > >> Mehdi, Chris & others, >> >> I guess I did not express the main reasons for wanting to switch over

On 2020-03-04, Louis Dionne via llvm-dev wrote: > > >> On Mar 4, 2020, at 12:13, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 8:14 AM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com <mailto:ldionne at apple.com>> wrote: >> Mehdi, Chris & others, >> >> I guess I did not express the main reasons for

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 8:14 AM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com> wrote: > Mehdi, Chris & others, > > I guess I did not express the main reasons for wanting to switch over very > well in my original message. > You original message was about “ commit attribution”, but now it is all about testing? Instead of jumping to a solution (pull-request) why not expressing the

On 22 Jul 2016, at 07:14, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Just tried to set it up there: https://github.com/joker-eph/llvm-unified > (git log —follow is working fine with this setup). > > While it preserves the history fine (I.e. the hashes are identical to the current git), it has a drawback: there isn’t anymore a common ancestor for the

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 10:58 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: > Since you are going to rewrite the mlir history anyway, you can > probably delete accidentally checked in large files if any. > Good point, I checked and this is the largest file in the history of the repo as far as I can tell: