Phabricator Maintenance

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
60 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
Hi folks,

phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.

That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.

Thus, I see two options:
1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.

2. We switch to github PRs

Thoughts?
/Manuel


On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Friendly ping

Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
<[hidden email]>:
>
> cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>
>
>
> De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
> Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
> À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
> Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
> Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>
>
>
> hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>
>
>
> - Dave
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>
> > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>
> After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>
> I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>
> Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>
> [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
-Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi folks,

phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.

That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.

Thus, I see two options:
1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.

2. We switch to github PRs

Thoughts?
/Manuel


On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Friendly ping

Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
<[hidden email]>:
>
> cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>
>
>
> De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
> Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
> À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
> Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
> Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>
>
>
> hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>
>
>
> - Dave
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>
> > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>
> After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>
> I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>
> Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>
> [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
tuned for updates!

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>
>> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>
>> Thus, I see two options:
>> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>
>> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> /Manuel
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Friendly ping
>>>
>>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>> <[hidden email]>:
>>> >
>>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > - Dave
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>> >
>>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>> >
>>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>> >
>>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>> >
>>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev



--
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
tuned for updates!
I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped. The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>
>> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>
>> Thus, I see two options:
>> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>
>> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> /Manuel
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Friendly ping
>>>
>>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>> <[hidden email]>:
>>> >
>>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > - Dave
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>> >
>>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>> >
>>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>> >
>>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>> >
>>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev



--
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev


On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, 18:55 Hubert Tong, <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
tuned for updates!
I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped. The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?

I don't think the choice is being taken away, but somebody who believes the cost is worth it has to be willing and able to take on the cost. I can see that that might feel the same if you'd prefer phab but can't shoulder the investment, but I think it's an important difference.

We got Phab back in the day when I started to work on clang and decided that it's not a good use of my time to do email code reviews (and I had to fight a cultural battle to get it :) if somebody thinks the diff of GitHub PR to Phab is worth the ongoing investment & security risks, I'm very happy to hand it over.

 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>
>> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>
>> Thus, I see two options:
>> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>
>> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> /Manuel
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Friendly ping
>>>
>>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>> <[hidden email]>:
>>> >
>>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > - Dave
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>> >
>>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>> >
>>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>> >
>>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>> >
>>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev



--
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:26 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, 18:55 Hubert Tong, <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
tuned for updates!
I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped. The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?

I don't think the choice is being taken away, but somebody who believes the cost is worth it has to be willing and able to take on the cost. I can see that that might feel the same if you'd prefer phab but can't shoulder the investment, but I think it's an important difference.

We got Phab back in the day when I started to work on clang and decided that it's not a good use of my time to do email code reviews (and I had to fight a cultural battle to get it :) if somebody thinks the diff of GitHub PR to Phab is worth the ongoing investment & security risks, I'm very happy to hand it over.
Thanks for having fought that cultural battle and your work since. I was responding mainly to say that we should not proceed with just assuming that Phabricator does not warrant further investment because GitHub PRs exist.
 

 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>
>> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>
>> Thus, I see two options:
>> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>
>> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> /Manuel
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Friendly ping
>>>
>>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>> <[hidden email]>:
>>> >
>>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > - Dave
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>> >
>>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>> >
>>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>> >
>>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>> >
>>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev



--
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 8:43 PM Hubert Tong <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:26 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, 18:55 Hubert Tong, <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
tuned for updates!
I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped. The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?

I don't think the choice is being taken away, but somebody who believes the cost is worth it has to be willing and able to take on the cost. I can see that that might feel the same if you'd prefer phab but can't shoulder the investment, but I think it's an important difference.

We got Phab back in the day when I started to work on clang and decided that it's not a good use of my time to do email code reviews (and I had to fight a cultural battle to get it :) if somebody thinks the diff of GitHub PR to Phab is worth the ongoing investment & security risks, I'm very happy to hand it over.
Thanks for having fought that cultural battle and your work since. I was responding mainly to say that we should not proceed with just assuming that Phabricator does not warrant further investment because GitHub PRs exist.

I do agree. I would urge everyone to look at the incremental benefit as well as the incremental cost though. Phab being better overall (while also clearly being worse in some aspects) doesn't automatically imply that it's a good idea to keep it, given the cost & risk it poses.
 
 

 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>
>> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>
>> Thus, I see two options:
>> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>
>> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> /Manuel
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Friendly ping
>>>
>>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>> <[hidden email]>:
>>> >
>>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > - Dave
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>> >
>>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>> >
>>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>> >
>>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>> >
>>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev



--
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by David Chisnall via cfe-dev


On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
tuned for updates!
I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped

That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review is frustrating in comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled across updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo history right now.

https://www.phacility.com offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?

-- 
Mehdi

 
. The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>
>> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>
>> Thus, I see two options:
>> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>
>> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> /Manuel
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Friendly ping
>>>
>>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>> <[hidden email]>:
>>> >
>>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > - Dave
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>> >
>>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>> >
>>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>> >
>>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>> >
>>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev



--
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved significantly in the past few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over resolving / unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've seen about GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated.

I also believe there's significant value for newcomers and casual contributors (like myself) in using the same tool as so many other major open source projects.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 13:04 Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
tuned for updates!
I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped

That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review is frustrating in comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled across updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo history right now.

https://www.phacility.com offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?

-- 
Mehdi

 
. The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>
>> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>
>> Thus, I see two options:
>> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>
>> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> /Manuel
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Friendly ping
>>>
>>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>> <[hidden email]>:
>>> >
>>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > - Dave
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>> >
>>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>> >
>>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>> >
>>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>> >
>>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev



--
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
--
--
Keith Smiley

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev


On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <[hidden email]> wrote:
FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved significantly in the past few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over resolving / unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've seen about GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated.

To be clear: this wasn't an outdated comment here, I'm using GitHub very frequently *right now* as I'm reviewing contributions to TensorFlow.
 

I also believe there's significant value for newcomers and casual contributors (like myself) in using the same tool as so many other major open source projects.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 13:04 Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
tuned for updates!
I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped

That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review is frustrating in comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled across updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo history right now.

https://www.phacility.com offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?

-- 
Mehdi

 
. The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>
>> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>
>> Thus, I see two options:
>> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>
>> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> /Manuel
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Friendly ping
>>>
>>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>> <[hidden email]>:
>>> >
>>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > - Dave
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>> >
>>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>> >
>>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>> >
>>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>> >
>>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev



--
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
--
--
Keith Smiley

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the issues with rebasing are very real.  Unless you only use merge commits you are going to have a very bad time 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <[hidden email]> wrote:
FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved significantly in the past few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over resolving / unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've seen about GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated.

To be clear: this wasn't an outdated comment here, I'm using GitHub very frequently *right now* as I'm reviewing contributions to TensorFlow.
 

I also believe there's significant value for newcomers and casual contributors (like myself) in using the same tool as so many other major open source projects.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 13:04 Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
tuned for updates!
I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped

That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review is frustrating in comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled across updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo history right now.

https://www.phacility.com offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?

-- 
Mehdi

 
. The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>
>> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>
>> Thus, I see two options:
>> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>
>> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> /Manuel
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Friendly ping
>>>
>>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>> <[hidden email]>:
>>> >
>>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > - Dave
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>> >
>>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>> >
>>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>> >
>>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>> >
>>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev



--
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
--
--
Keith Smiley
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the issues with rebasing are very real.  Unless you only use merge commits you are going to have a very bad time

Would it be practical to use merge commits during review (never
rebasing) & then rebasing/squashing to commit to the main line?
(guessing that might still make looking back at the history of the
review difficult?)

- Dave

>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved significantly in the past few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over resolving / unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've seen about GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated.
>>
>>
>> To be clear: this wasn't an outdated comment here, I'm using GitHub very frequently *right now* as I'm reviewing contributions to TensorFlow.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also believe there's significant value for newcomers and casual contributors (like myself) in using the same tool as so many other major open source projects.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 13:04 Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
>>>>>> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
>>>>>> tuned for updates!
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review is frustrating in comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled across updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo history right now.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.phacility.com offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mehdi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> . The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Hi folks,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>>>>>> >> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thus, I see two options:
>>>>>> >> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thoughts?
>>>>>> >> /Manuel
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Friendly ping
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>>>>> >>> <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>>>>> >>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>>>>> >>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> >>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > - Dave
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Hi all,
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> >>> > [hidden email]
>>>>>> >>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> > [hidden email]
>>>>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>>>>>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Keith Smiley
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
Yes GH has a Squash & Merge option that works well.  It’s what we use.  We use the GH web interface for all of this though, if you’re supporting command line you may need some custom tooling to support this.

The biggest thing is that it requires a lot of mental retraining to get out of the rebasing mindset for daily development 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:32 PM David Blaikie <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the issues with rebasing are very real.  Unless you only use merge commits you are going to have a very bad time

Would it be practical to use merge commits during review (never
rebasing) & then rebasing/squashing to commit to the main line?
(guessing that might still make looking back at the history of the
review difficult?)

- Dave

>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved significantly in the past few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over resolving / unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've seen about GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated.
>>
>>
>> To be clear: this wasn't an outdated comment here, I'm using GitHub very frequently *right now* as I'm reviewing contributions to TensorFlow.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also believe there's significant value for newcomers and casual contributors (like myself) in using the same tool as so many other major open source projects.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 13:04 Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
>>>>>> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
>>>>>> tuned for updates!
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review is frustrating in comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled across updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo history right now.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.phacility.com offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mehdi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> . The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Hi folks,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>>>>>> >> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thus, I see two options:
>>>>>> >> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thoughts?
>>>>>> >> /Manuel
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Friendly ping
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>>>>> >>> <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>>>>> >>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>>>>> >>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> >>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > - Dave
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Hi all,
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> >>> > [hidden email]
>>>>>> >>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> > [hidden email]
>>>>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>>>>>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Keith Smiley
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab.

You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request by definition compares your working copy against master.

This is not very compatible with LLVMs approach to incremental development.  For example, if you ask someone to break a large patch into 5 smaller patches, with Phab this is very easy because you can upload the diff between N and N+1, then N+1 and N+2, etc.

But with the GH workflow in order to get a review on N+4 you have to include all the changes from all the earlier revisions as well.

The way around this is to fork and make 5 branches in your fork, then base each branch off the previous one.  But now what do you do if someone requests a change on the first one?

Overall it’s a pretty serious limitation if you’re used to Phab, and I would evaluate very carefully if you’re thinking of going this route

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:35 PM Zachary Turner <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes GH has a Squash & Merge option that works well.  It’s what we use.  We use the GH web interface for all of this though, if you’re supporting command line you may need some custom tooling to support this.

The biggest thing is that it requires a lot of mental retraining to get out of the rebasing mindset for daily development 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:32 PM David Blaikie <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the issues with rebasing are very real.  Unless you only use merge commits you are going to have a very bad time

Would it be practical to use merge commits during review (never
rebasing) & then rebasing/squashing to commit to the main line?
(guessing that might still make looking back at the history of the
review difficult?)

- Dave

>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved significantly in the past few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over resolving / unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've seen about GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated.
>>
>>
>> To be clear: this wasn't an outdated comment here, I'm using GitHub very frequently *right now* as I'm reviewing contributions to TensorFlow.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also believe there's significant value for newcomers and casual contributors (like myself) in using the same tool as so many other major open source projects.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 13:04 Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
>>>>>> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
>>>>>> tuned for updates!
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review is frustrating in comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled across updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo history right now.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.phacility.com offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mehdi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> . The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Hi folks,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>>>>>> >> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thus, I see two options:
>>>>>> >> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thoughts?
>>>>>> >> /Manuel
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Friendly ping
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>>>>> >>> <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>>>>> >>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>>>>> >>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> >>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > - Dave
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Hi all,
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> >>> > [hidden email]
>>>>>> >>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> > [hidden email]
>>>>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>>>>>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Keith Smiley
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by David Chisnall via cfe-dev
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 7:32 PM David Blaikie via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the issues with rebasing are very real.  Unless you only use merge commits you are going to have a very bad time

Would it be practical to use merge commits during review (never
rebasing) & then rebasing/squashing to commit to the main line?
(guessing that might still make looking back at the history of the
review difficult?)
A merge appears in the UI as introducing many, many commits. Also, a key method of progressing reviews on Phabricator (for me) is to go through the differences between the updates. If there is a merge in between on GitHub, I don't want to see all the changes that come from the merged commits.
 

- Dave

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by David Chisnall via cfe-dev
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:04 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
tuned for updates!
I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped

That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review is frustrating in comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled across updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo history right now.

https://www.phacility.com offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?

Last time I checked, they basically said they didn't want us (no customizations, which LLVM folks still wanted).
Whatever we do, we need some volunteer who's willing to spend multiple days on this (and potentially more going forward).
I'm currently trying to find a volunteer more than solutions.
 

-- 
Mehdi

 
. The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>
>> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>
>> Thus, I see two options:
>> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>
>> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> /Manuel
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Friendly ping
>>>
>>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>> <[hidden email]>:
>>> >
>>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > - Dave
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>> >
>>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>> >
>>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>> >
>>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>> >
>>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev



--
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by David Chisnall via cfe-dev
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:45 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab.

You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request by definition compares your working copy against master.

This is not very compatible with LLVMs approach to incremental development.  For example, if you ask someone to break a large patch into 5 smaller patches, with Phab this is very easy because you can upload the diff between N and N+1, then N+1 and N+2, etc.

But with the GH workflow in order to get a review on N+4 you have to include all the changes from all the earlier revisions as well.

The way around this is to fork and make 5 branches in your fork, then base each branch off the previous one.  But now what do you do if someone requests a change on the first one?

Overall it’s a pretty serious limitation if you’re used to Phab, and I would evaluate very carefully if you’re thinking of going this route

Are you volunteering to drive Phab maintenance and keep it up & running?
 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:35 PM Zachary Turner <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes GH has a Squash & Merge option that works well.  It’s what we use.  We use the GH web interface for all of this though, if you’re supporting command line you may need some custom tooling to support this.

The biggest thing is that it requires a lot of mental retraining to get out of the rebasing mindset for daily development 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:32 PM David Blaikie <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the issues with rebasing are very real.  Unless you only use merge commits you are going to have a very bad time

Would it be practical to use merge commits during review (never
rebasing) & then rebasing/squashing to commit to the main line?
(guessing that might still make looking back at the history of the
review difficult?)

- Dave

>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved significantly in the past few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over resolving / unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've seen about GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated.
>>
>>
>> To be clear: this wasn't an outdated comment here, I'm using GitHub very frequently *right now* as I'm reviewing contributions to TensorFlow.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also believe there's significant value for newcomers and casual contributors (like myself) in using the same tool as so many other major open source projects.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 13:04 Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
>>>>>> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
>>>>>> tuned for updates!
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review is frustrating in comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled across updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo history right now.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.phacility.com offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mehdi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> . The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Hi folks,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>>>>>> >> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thus, I see two options:
>>>>>> >> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thoughts?
>>>>>> >> /Manuel
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Friendly ping
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>>>>> >>> <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>>>>> >>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>>>>> >>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> >>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > - Dave
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Hi all,
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> >>> > [hidden email]
>>>>>> >>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> > [hidden email]
>>>>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>>>>>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Keith Smiley
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
Just to explain the background on what I'm trying to get here:
Currently, the way to get something going in LLVM is to have somebody who wants it strongly enough to do it.
Back in the day, I wanted Phab strongly enough over email that I was willing to spend the *months* (over the years) it took to make this happen. And it was very worth it imo :)
Now, for me personally, the cost of Phab (security risk, maintenance, etc) is not worth the diff to github PRs, as I also see significant upside with github PRs to new contributors.

Thus, my goal is to find somebody for whom the diff between github PRs and Phab is large enough that they're willing to spend the time to keep Phab up and running.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:34 AM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:45 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab.

You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request by definition compares your working copy against master.

This is not very compatible with LLVMs approach to incremental development.  For example, if you ask someone to break a large patch into 5 smaller patches, with Phab this is very easy because you can upload the diff between N and N+1, then N+1 and N+2, etc.

But with the GH workflow in order to get a review on N+4 you have to include all the changes from all the earlier revisions as well.

The way around this is to fork and make 5 branches in your fork, then base each branch off the previous one.  But now what do you do if someone requests a change on the first one?

Overall it’s a pretty serious limitation if you’re used to Phab, and I would evaluate very carefully if you’re thinking of going this route

Are you volunteering to drive Phab maintenance and keep it up & running?
 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:35 PM Zachary Turner <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes GH has a Squash & Merge option that works well.  It’s what we use.  We use the GH web interface for all of this though, if you’re supporting command line you may need some custom tooling to support this.

The biggest thing is that it requires a lot of mental retraining to get out of the rebasing mindset for daily development 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:32 PM David Blaikie <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the issues with rebasing are very real.  Unless you only use merge commits you are going to have a very bad time

Would it be practical to use merge commits during review (never
rebasing) & then rebasing/squashing to commit to the main line?
(guessing that might still make looking back at the history of the
review difficult?)

- Dave

>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved significantly in the past few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over resolving / unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've seen about GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated.
>>
>>
>> To be clear: this wasn't an outdated comment here, I'm using GitHub very frequently *right now* as I'm reviewing contributions to TensorFlow.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also believe there's significant value for newcomers and casual contributors (like myself) in using the same tool as so many other major open source projects.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 13:04 Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
>>>>>> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
>>>>>> tuned for updates!
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review is frustrating in comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled across updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo history right now.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.phacility.com offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mehdi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> . The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Hi folks,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>>>>>> >> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thus, I see two options:
>>>>>> >> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thoughts?
>>>>>> >> /Manuel
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Friendly ping
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>>>>> >>> <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>>>>> >>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>>>>> >>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> >>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > - Dave
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Hi all,
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> >>> > [hidden email]
>>>>>> >>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> > [hidden email]
>>>>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>>>>>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Keith Smiley
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by David Chisnall via cfe-dev
No, I am not even involved with LLVM anymore, I just follow the list still.  I am only answering David's question about some of the limitations with the GitHub PR system compared to Phab, to make sure people have all the information about what moving away from Phab actually means.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:35 AM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:45 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab.

You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request by definition compares your working copy against master.

This is not very compatible with LLVMs approach to incremental development.  For example, if you ask someone to break a large patch into 5 smaller patches, with Phab this is very easy because you can upload the diff between N and N+1, then N+1 and N+2, etc.

But with the GH workflow in order to get a review on N+4 you have to include all the changes from all the earlier revisions as well.

The way around this is to fork and make 5 branches in your fork, then base each branch off the previous one.  But now what do you do if someone requests a change on the first one?

Overall it’s a pretty serious limitation if you’re used to Phab, and I would evaluate very carefully if you’re thinking of going this route

Are you volunteering to drive Phab maintenance and keep it up & running?
 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:35 PM Zachary Turner <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes GH has a Squash & Merge option that works well.  It’s what we use.  We use the GH web interface for all of this though, if you’re supporting command line you may need some custom tooling to support this.

The biggest thing is that it requires a lot of mental retraining to get out of the rebasing mindset for daily development 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:32 PM David Blaikie <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the issues with rebasing are very real.  Unless you only use merge commits you are going to have a very bad time

Would it be practical to use merge commits during review (never
rebasing) & then rebasing/squashing to commit to the main line?
(guessing that might still make looking back at the history of the
review difficult?)

- Dave

>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved significantly in the past few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over resolving / unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've seen about GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated.
>>
>>
>> To be clear: this wasn't an outdated comment here, I'm using GitHub very frequently *right now* as I'm reviewing contributions to TensorFlow.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also believe there's significant value for newcomers and casual contributors (like myself) in using the same tool as so many other major open source projects.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 13:04 Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
>>>>>> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
>>>>>> tuned for updates!
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review is frustrating in comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled across updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo history right now.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.phacility.com offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mehdi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> . The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Hi folks,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>>>>>> >> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thus, I see two options:
>>>>>> >> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thoughts?
>>>>>> >> /Manuel
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Friendly ping
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>>>>> >>> <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>>>>> >>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>>>>> >>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> >>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > - Dave
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Hi all,
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> >>> > [hidden email]
>>>>>> >>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> > [hidden email]
>>>>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>>>>>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Keith Smiley
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by David Chisnall via cfe-dev

How much ongoing work do you estimate Phabracitor requires? There’s the times the server falls over (e.g. database exceptions) and needs to be revived, there’s updates to Phabricator itself, there’s keeping the server updated, and probably a bunch of other work I’m not thinking of. About how much of a time commitment would keeping Phabricator going be, in your estimation?

 

From: llvm-dev <[hidden email]> on behalf of Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, June 22, 2020 at 1:21 PM
To: Zachary Turner <[hidden email]>
Cc: LLVM Dev <[hidden email]>, cfe-dev <[hidden email]>, Chris Lattner <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Maintenance

 

Just to explain the background on what I'm trying to get here:

Currently, the way to get something going in LLVM is to have somebody who wants it strongly enough to do it.

Back in the day, I wanted Phab strongly enough over email that I was willing to spend the *months* (over the years) it took to make this happen. And it was very worth it imo :)

Now, for me personally, the cost of Phab (security risk, maintenance, etc) is not worth the diff to github PRs, as I also see significant upside with github PRs to new contributors.

 

Thus, my goal is to find somebody for whom the diff between github PRs and Phab is large enough that they're willing to spend the time to keep Phab up and running.

 

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:34 AM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:45 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab.

 

You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request by definition compares your working copy against master.

 

This is not very compatible with LLVMs approach to incremental development.  For example, if you ask someone to break a large patch into 5 smaller patches, with Phab this is very easy because you can upload the diff between N and N+1, then N+1 and N+2, etc.

 

But with the GH workflow in order to get a review on N+4 you have to include all the changes from all the earlier revisions as well.

 

The way around this is to fork and make 5 branches in your fork, then base each branch off the previous one.  But now what do you do if someone requests a change on the first one?

 

Overall it’s a pretty serious limitation if you’re used to Phab, and I would evaluate very carefully if you’re thinking of going this route

 

Are you volunteering to drive Phab maintenance and keep it up & running?

 

 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:35 PM Zachary Turner <[hidden email]> wrote:

Yes GH has a Squash & Merge option that works well.  It’s what we use.  We use the GH web interface for all of this though, if you’re supporting command line you may need some custom tooling to support this.

 

The biggest thing is that it requires a lot of mental retraining to get out of the rebasing mindset for daily development 

 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:32 PM David Blaikie <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the issues with rebasing are very real.  Unless you only use merge commits you are going to have a very bad time

Would it be practical to use merge commits during review (never
rebasing) & then rebasing/squashing to commit to the main line?
(guessing that might still make looking back at the history of the
review difficult?)

- Dave

>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved significantly in the past few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over resolving / unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've seen about GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated.
>>
>>
>> To be clear: this wasn't an outdated comment here, I'm using GitHub very frequently *right now* as I'm reviewing contributions to TensorFlow.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also believe there's significant value for newcomers and casual contributors (like myself) in using the same tool as so many other major open source projects.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 13:04 Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of
>>>>>> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay
>>>>>> tuned for updates!
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option of Phabricator reviews was being dropped
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's my impression as well, I find GitHub review is frustrating in comparison to phab, in particular the way comments are handled across updates, unless you stick to never rebase and only append commits and merges from master. This is unfortunately not compatible with the LLVM repo history right now.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.phacility.com offers hosting for Phabricator, could we look into this instead?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mehdi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> . The original post on this thread indicated interest in not maintaining Phabricator. How does that affect the availability of Phabricator? Does this mean that the community is going to move to GitHub PRs because the choice of Phabricator is being taken away?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev
>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Hi folks,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience.
>>>>>> >> For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI compared to github PRs, but there are also significant downsides in the effort to integrate with Phab that github PRs make easier.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thus, I see two options:
>>>>>> >> 1. somebody volunteers to take on Phabricator maintenance and figures out a way to fund it, either through the LLVM foundation or some other means (I'd love for us at Google to pay for it directly and give folks outside Google access, but that is unfortunately a hard problem for a variety of reasons). I'd be happy to help to provide a DB snapshot for the migration, of course.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> 2. We switch to github PRs
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thoughts?
>>>>>> >> /Manuel
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM Raphael Isemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Friendly ping
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Am Do., 9. Apr. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Ganea
>>>>>> >>> <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > De : llvm-dev <[hidden email]> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>>>>>> >>> > Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM
>>>>>> >>> > À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <[hidden email]>; Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> >>> > Cc : llvm-dev <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> >>> > Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google authentication since today
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > hey Manuel - are you/do you know who's likely to be doing any upkeep on Phabricator these days? Might need an update for this...
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > - Dave
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:57 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Hi all,
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > > Expected to retrieve an "account" email from Google Plus API call to identify account, but failed.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > After some searching it seems that this error is due to the Google Plus API being shutdown and the Phabricator folks replaced that logic (including this error message string) a year ago here [1]
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > I assume we haven’t updated reviews.llvm.org to whatever latest Phabricator release contains that patch.
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > Not sure who’s currently responsible for updating reviews.llvm.org so I thought I’ll just drop a mail to the list (and maybe save someone else from figuring out why their login is suddenly broken).
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D20030
>>>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> >>> > [hidden email]
>>>>>> >>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> > [hidden email]
>>>>>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>>>>>> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Keith Smiley
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
123