Hi Zachary, have you tried that recently? If yes, can you re-open https://secure.phabricator.com/D8547 (because that's marked as fixed upstream)
Thanks, /Manuel On Fri Aug 22 2014 at 8:36:36 PM Zachary Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > Digging up this old thread because I thought of another use case that > would be nice to support. I would like to be able to attach files > generated with git format-patch to Phabricator reviews. I guess it chokes > on the header information though and rejects the patch as invalid. > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Nick Lewycky <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Chandler Carruth wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Nick Lewycky <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't like the lack attached patch files on the mailing list to do >>>> a normal review. >>>> >>>> >>>> Wait what? The emails I get from phab *have* an attached patch file. >>>> That was a hard requirement when we first set up Phabricator. >>>> >>> >>> Aaron nailed it. The initial emails come with attached patches. The >>> problem is when people comment with the changes they made to the code, but >>> there's no updated patch attached to that email. Aaron found examples so >>> I'll defer to those. I can also keep an eye out for the next time it >>> happens if you want. >>> >> >> Manuel is planning to look into this but is on vacation so I just wanted >> to follow up with a concrete suggestion: >> >> If you are using Phabricator (which I still think is very useful), I >> think it is important to actively look at the mailing list results. If you >> meant to update the patch and the email didn't have one attached, reply to >> the email with an attachment of the updated patch for folks to use. >> >> While I'm looking forward to improvements that fix these issues, I still >> find Phab very helpful as-is and just plan to observe and manually correct >> any bad behavior on the email thread as that is (and should always be) the >> canonical review log. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
