[analyzer] Using Phabricator Project/Group and Ponder

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

[analyzer] Using Phabricator Project/Group and Ponder

Keane, Erich via cfe-dev
Analyzer devs, don't we want to create a Phabricator Group?
Just like the Flang devs have we could also have one.

In that way, we could subscribe to all of the patches which were created by one of us.
In case another person starts to work on the analyzer he/she just joins this group and we all get subscribed to his/her patches without modifying any herald rules.

By the same token, we could also benefit using Phabricator Ponder for asking questions relating strictly to the analyzer. So we wouldn't spam the cfe-dev, and still, have some sort of searchable archive of the questions and discussions.

AFAIK we stick to Phabricator for reviews regardless, so I don't really see any drawbacks of using these two Phab features.

What do you think?

_______________________________________________
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: [analyzer] Using Phabricator Project/Group and Ponder

Keane, Erich via cfe-dev
Hi!

I am not opposed to having an analyzer group but I would prefer to keep the technical discussions on cfe-dev for the following reasons:
- Newcomers are more likely to search/ask on cfe-dev
- I am not sure whether we will continue to use Phabricator indefinitely, there are some debates about this. While the mailing list is unlikely to go away anytime soon
- Fragmentation can be bad
- Technical questions are never considered spam on cfe-dev (especially when the discussion is tagged properly)

I think, currently, one of the best ways to subscribe to analyzer related patches is to watch changes to certain directories and patches with certain [tag]s. I do support, however, everything that makes maintaining herald rules easier.

Cheers,
Gabor

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 17:18, Balázs Benics via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Analyzer devs, don't we want to create a Phabricator Group?
Just like the Flang devs have we could also have one.

In that way, we could subscribe to all of the patches which were created by one of us.
In case another person starts to work on the analyzer he/she just joins this group and we all get subscribed to his/her patches without modifying any herald rules.

By the same token, we could also benefit using Phabricator Ponder for asking questions relating strictly to the analyzer. So we wouldn't spam the cfe-dev, and still, have some sort of searchable archive of the questions and discussions.

AFAIK we stick to Phabricator for reviews regardless, so I don't really see any drawbacks of using these two Phab features.

What do you think?
_______________________________________________
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: [analyzer] Using Phabricator Project/Group and Ponder

Keane, Erich via cfe-dev
I strongly agree with Gábor.

Static analyzer is part of clang. Like, literally - we're all working on the same executable, the same product. We have to discuss it the way the rest of clang is discussed. Everybody who works on clang should be assumed to be interesterd in what's going on because we're potentially messing with their binary.

Discussing things on cfe-dev is also a nice way of informing everybody that we're still alive and being actively developed. This was quite important a few years ago when static analyzer was perceived to be a dead project and everybody was discouraged from working on it :)

On 7/28/20 11:02 AM, Gábor Horváth via cfe-dev wrote:
Hi!

I am not opposed to having an analyzer group but I would prefer to keep the technical discussions on cfe-dev for the following reasons:
- Newcomers are more likely to search/ask on cfe-dev
- I am not sure whether we will continue to use Phabricator indefinitely, there are some debates about this. While the mailing list is unlikely to go away anytime soon
- Fragmentation can be bad
- Technical questions are never considered spam on cfe-dev (especially when the discussion is tagged properly)

I think, currently, one of the best ways to subscribe to analyzer related patches is to watch changes to certain directories and patches with certain [tag]s. I do support, however, everything that makes maintaining herald rules easier.

Cheers,
Gabor

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 17:18, Balázs Benics via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Analyzer devs, don't we want to create a Phabricator Group?
Just like the Flang devs have we could also have one.

In that way, we could subscribe to all of the patches which were created by one of us.
In case another person starts to work on the analyzer he/she just joins this group and we all get subscribed to his/her patches without modifying any herald rules.

By the same token, we could also benefit using Phabricator Ponder for asking questions relating strictly to the analyzer. So we wouldn't spam the cfe-dev, and still, have some sort of searchable archive of the questions and discussions.

AFAIK we stick to Phabricator for reviews regardless, so I don't really see any drawbacks of using these two Phab features.

What do you think?
_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
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: [analyzer] Using Phabricator Project/Group and Ponder

Keane, Erich via cfe-dev
OK, let's say I'm convinced about using cfe-dev for this purpose. 

What about the Phab Group? 

An other question is the llvm discord server. 
It seems that the analyzer channel is quite - sort to say - silent. 
Should we use that instead? Especially for lightweight questions and knowlegde sharing. 
If a cfe-dev quality one arises, we can still discuss that here. 

What do you think about this? 

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 21:42 Artem Dergachev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I strongly agree with Gábor.

Static analyzer is part of clang. Like, literally - we're all working on the same executable, the same product. We have to discuss it the way the rest of clang is discussed. Everybody who works on clang should be assumed to be interesterd in what's going on because we're potentially messing with their binary.

Discussing things on cfe-dev is also a nice way of informing everybody that we're still alive and being actively developed. This was quite important a few years ago when static analyzer was perceived to be a dead project and everybody was discouraged from working on it :)

On 7/28/20 11:02 AM, Gábor Horváth via cfe-dev wrote:
Hi!

I am not opposed to having an analyzer group but I would prefer to keep the technical discussions on cfe-dev for the following reasons:
- Newcomers are more likely to search/ask on cfe-dev
- I am not sure whether we will continue to use Phabricator indefinitely, there are some debates about this. While the mailing list is unlikely to go away anytime soon
- Fragmentation can be bad
- Technical questions are never considered spam on cfe-dev (especially when the discussion is tagged properly)

I think, currently, one of the best ways to subscribe to analyzer related patches is to watch changes to certain directories and patches with certain [tag]s. I do support, however, everything that makes maintaining herald rules easier.

Cheers,
Gabor

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 17:18, Balázs Benics via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Analyzer devs, don't we want to create a Phabricator Group?
Just like the Flang devs have we could also have one.

In that way, we could subscribe to all of the patches which were created by one of us.
In case another person starts to work on the analyzer he/she just joins this group and we all get subscribed to his/her patches without modifying any herald rules.

By the same token, we could also benefit using Phabricator Ponder for asking questions relating strictly to the analyzer. So we wouldn't spam the cfe-dev, and still, have some sort of searchable archive of the questions and discussions.

AFAIK we stick to Phabricator for reviews regardless, so I don't really see any drawbacks of using these two Phab features.

What do you think?
_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
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: [analyzer] Using Phabricator Project/Group and Ponder

Keane, Erich via cfe-dev
One upside of a dedicated service would be the ability to reply to threads that never made it to your inbox. Right now, if I would like to reply to something I didn't receive (such as the thread on llvm-dev, a list I didn't subscribe to, about Phab maintenance and upgrade) it's.... Well, I'd say impossible in a way that mailman picks up as a real reply.
(Maybe there's a way to craft the right email headers, etc. It's not terribly important, and I also haven't given it much thought. So take "impossible" with a mine of salt.)

However, one great upside of the mailing list is the ability to interface with it easily. Personally, I'm not very active on the list, but my biggest active streak is when I've nothing better to do and only got my phone or a low grade tablet... on both of which, accessing and writing emails is easy, but logging into arbitrary websites with potentially misbehaving mobile support, unknown ability to really save draft messages, etc... would not be convenient.

So far I've not seen people using encrypted messages or digital signatures on mails here (unlike some other lists I'm on...) which is a great + as the email clients can properly keep the discussion threaded. (Outlook seems to flop from PGP signatures which is a constant casus belli with a colleague.)

Discord being silent isn't an issue by itself. It's a fundamentally different medium (think of an IRC on steroids with builtin logging enabled...) which people naturally use differently. It's not a system that's well-designed or meant for long term, or even "technical" discussions.
And you also have to take into account the problems with timezones because we're an international community.
And, when filtered for CSA *specifically*, also a very small community.
(Another unfortunate thing with Discord is that many corporations go out of their way to prevent their people from accessing it from corporate machines...)

I think tagging messages is a good thing. I also vaguely remember mailman supporting a "per-topic subscription" sort of thing. But I've never been a mailman admin at large, so I'm not sure about how much of a configuration hell would be to set it up. 

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020, 23:44 Balázs Benics via cfe-dev, <[hidden email]> wrote:
OK, let's say I'm convinced about using cfe-dev for this purpose. 

What about the Phab Group? 

An other question is the llvm discord server. 
It seems that the analyzer channel is quite - sort to say - silent. 
Should we use that instead? Especially for lightweight questions and knowlegde sharing. 
If a cfe-dev quality one arises, we can still discuss that here. 

What do you think about this? 

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 21:42 Artem Dergachev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I strongly agree with Gábor.

Static analyzer is part of clang. Like, literally - we're all working on the same executable, the same product. We have to discuss it the way the rest of clang is discussed. Everybody who works on clang should be assumed to be interesterd in what's going on because we're potentially messing with their binary.

Discussing things on cfe-dev is also a nice way of informing everybody that we're still alive and being actively developed. This was quite important a few years ago when static analyzer was perceived to be a dead project and everybody was discouraged from working on it :)

On 7/28/20 11:02 AM, Gábor Horváth via cfe-dev wrote:
Hi!

I am not opposed to having an analyzer group but I would prefer to keep the technical discussions on cfe-dev for the following reasons:
- Newcomers are more likely to search/ask on cfe-dev
- I am not sure whether we will continue to use Phabricator indefinitely, there are some debates about this. While the mailing list is unlikely to go away anytime soon
- Fragmentation can be bad
- Technical questions are never considered spam on cfe-dev (especially when the discussion is tagged properly)

I think, currently, one of the best ways to subscribe to analyzer related patches is to watch changes to certain directories and patches with certain [tag]s. I do support, however, everything that makes maintaining herald rules easier.

Cheers,
Gabor

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 17:18, Balázs Benics via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Analyzer devs, don't we want to create a Phabricator Group?
Just like the Flang devs have we could also have one.

In that way, we could subscribe to all of the patches which were created by one of us.
In case another person starts to work on the analyzer he/she just joins this group and we all get subscribed to his/her patches without modifying any herald rules.

By the same token, we could also benefit using Phabricator Ponder for asking questions relating strictly to the analyzer. So we wouldn't spam the cfe-dev, and still, have some sort of searchable archive of the questions and discussions.

AFAIK we stick to Phabricator for reviews regardless, so I don't really see any drawbacks of using these two Phab features.

What do you think?
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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