I read the friendly Arcanist manual and I wonder if we intend to have a default .arcconfig file in the GHC repo? From the docs it seems like a good idea.
Janek Dnia wtorek, 17 czerwca 2014, Simon Marlow napisał: > On 13/06/14 10:47, Jan Stolarek wrote: > > It seems that most people are in favour of using Phabricator for code > > review. So what are the next steps? Can we just start using the existing > > phabricator instance? I'm working on some code right now that definitely > > needs reviewing. > > You can use it, and a few of us have already been doing so. There isn't > any Trac integration yet, but it works nicely for patch review. > > There's a short intro doc here: > https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/article/differential/, > but it's not hard to figure out the basics, and you'll learn by watching > how other people use it. If you go to the Herald tool you have yourself > automatically subscribed to diffs that touch areas of the code that > you're interested in. > > Pro tip: the keyboard shortcuts are really useful, especially "z". Hit > "?" to see all the shortcuts. > > Cheers, > Simon > > > Janek > > > > Dnia niedziela, 8 czerwca 2014, Simon Marlow napisał: > >> On 07/06/2014 07:21, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote: > >>> So, why not put everything on GutHub and use pull requests and so on? > >> > >> github just isn't great for doing code reviews. No side-by-side diffs, > >> and it sends you a separate email for every single comment, there's no > >> concept of a "review" consisting of multiple inline comments (unless > >> I've missed something). I'm afraid if we were using this for regular > >> reviews I would have to disable the email notifications, which makes it > >> significantly less useful. > >> > >>> SimonM writes that Phabricator is better than GitHub. I’m happy to > >>> believe that, but he also writes that using it requires installing > >>> local software and quite a bit of work. Moreover, I like to add that > >>> lots of people already know how to use GitHub and probably few know > >>> Phabricator. > >>> > >>> So, we are talking about having a somewhat better tool in return for > >>> three very significant disadvantages: (1) local installation, (2) work > >>> to set up and maintain Phabricator, and (3) effort by many people to > >>> learn to use it. > >> > >> Well, you've tipped the balance with "somewhat" and "significant" here, > >> I'd say Phabricator is "significantly" better than github for code > >> reviews, while installing arc is "somewhat" annoying :-) > >> > >> I have to admit it's not a no-brainer, but I do worry that github just > >> wouldn't cut it for doing a lot of code reviewing, whereas I spend my > >> life inside Phabricator so I know it works really well. > >> > >> What's more, github doesn't let you put animated gifs in code reviews. > >> Need I say more? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Simon > >> > >>> We also have a constant lack of sufficient men power. So, why spend > >>> effort on building our own infrastructure, which will only increase the > >>> hurdle for contributors (as they have to deal with an unknown system)? > >>> Let’s outsource the effort to GitHub. > >>> > >>> Manuel > >>> > >>> Simon Peyton Jones <[email protected]>: > >>>> At the moment GHC's main sources aren't on github, which means that > >>>> that (in my highly imperfect understanding) people can't submit pull > >>>> requests or use their code review mechanisms. Moreover, most people > >>>> don't have commit rights on the main GHC server, so if someone wants > >>>> to offer a patch they can really only do so in textual form attached > >>>> to Trac. People with commit rights can make a branch, but there's a > >>>> danger that over a decade we'll accumulate zillions of dead branches > >>>> which people forgot to delete. I think on github the branch is in a > >>>> different repo, belonging to the patch author. > >>>> > >>>> So we really don't have a good work flow for creating, reviewing, > >>>> modifying, and finally apply patches. I am no expert on these > >>>> matters. If Phabricator would help with that I'm all for it. But > >>>> perhaps there are other alternatives? Or is Phab the lead thing. > >>>> Will it stay around? > >>>> > >>>> Also before going too far I'd really like someone to document the > >>>> workflow carefully, and make sure it works from Windows equally well. > >>>> > >>>> I'm not too stressed out about losing the review trail of a patch. > >>>> Much of it will be commenting on stuff that no longer appears in the > >>>> final patch. Anything that's important should appear in a Note in the > >>>> source code; even the commit messages are invisible until you really > >>>> start digging. > >>>> > >>>> Simon > >>>> > >>>> | -----Original Message----- > >>>> | From: ghc-devs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > >>>> | Austin Seipp > >>>> | Sent: 06 June 2014 05:06 > >>>> | To: [email protected] > >>>> | Subject: RFC: Phabricator for patches and code review > >>>> | > >>>> | Hello all, > >>>> | > >>>> | Recently, while doing server maintenance, several of the > >>>> | administrators for Haskell.org set up an instance of Phabricator[1], > >>>> | located at https://phabricator.haskell.org > >>>> | > >>>> | For those who aren't aware, Phabricator (or "Phab") is a suite of > >>>> | tools for software development. Think of it like a polished, > >>>> | semi-private GitHub with a lot of applications and tools for all > >>>> | kinds of needs. We've been using it to do issue tracking for > >>>> | Haskell.org maintenance and like it a lot so far. > >>>> | > >>>> | One very nice aspect of Phabricator though is it has a very nice > >>>> | code review tool, called 'Differential', that is very useful. For > >>>> | people who have used a tool like Review Board, it's similar. > >>>> | Furthermore, it has a very convenient userland tool called > >>>> | 'Arcanist' which makes it easy for newcomers to post a review and > >>>> | get it merged when it's ready all from the command line. > >>>> | > >>>> | I'd like to see if people are interested in using Phab _strictly_ > >>>> | for code review of GHC patches. It is a dedicated tool specifically > >>>> | for this, and I think it works much better than Trac or inline > >>>> | GitHub comments. > >>>> | > >>>> | Also, Phab can also support post-commit reviews. So if I touch > >>>> | something in the runtime system and just push, perhaps Simon or > >>>> | Edward would like to look, and they can be alerted right when I do > >>>> | this, and then yell if I did something stupid. > >>>> | > >>>> | Before I go much further, I'd like to ask: is there *any* interest > >>>> | in this? Or are people satisifed with Trac? The primary motivations > >>>> | are roughly, in no particular order: > >>>> | > >>>> | 1) Code review is good for everyone, a good way for people to learn > >>>> | the code and ask questions, and useful to give feedback to > >>>> | newcomers. And even experienced GHC hackers can learn things from > >>>> | reading code, as we all do regularly, or find things that need > >>>> | cleanup. > >>>> | > >>>> | 2) Phabricator in particular makes it very easy to submit patches > >>>> | for review. To submit a patch, I just run the command 'arc diff' and > >>>> | it Does The Right Thing. It also makes it easy to ensure people are > >>>> | *alerted* when a patch might be relevant to them. > >>>> | > >>>> | 3) They can be uploaded and created from the command line, and > >>>> | merged easily afterwords the same way. This is particularly useful > >>>> | for newcomers, and for me. :) > >>>> | > >>>> | 4) Differential is dedicated to code review, and much better at it > >>>> | than just reading patches on Trac IMO. > >>>> | > >>>> | 5) It supports both post-commit code review, as well as pre-commit > >>>> | review. Post commit would be especially useful for us too, I think. > >>>> | > >>>> | Point #2 and #3 are mostly relevant for me, because I mostly handle > >>>> | incoming patches. But I think in general it would be nice, and make > >>>> | it a lot easier for newcomers to submit patches, and us to look over > >>>> | them. > >>>> | > >>>> | Here's an example of a Differential code review: > >>>> | > >>>> | https://phabricator.haskell.org/D4 > >>>> | > >>>> | This is a demo using my 'wip/ermsb' patch. You'll need to create an > >>>> | account to login, but it shouldn't be much trouble, you can login > >>>> | several ways. I'll fix the login requirement soon. Feel free to read > >>>> | the code, comment on it, and play around. It's more of a > >>>> | demonstration, but real code review would be welcome too. :) > >>>> | > >>>> | If people are interested in doing this, I can add notes to the wiki > >>>> | pages for newcomers, and I'll send another email about Phab so > >>>> | people can understand it a little better. But I want to ask first. > >>>> | > >>>> | There is an argument that our team is so small, code review has > >>>> | unnecessary burdens. But I think Phab could help a lot with tracking > >>>> | outside patches and getting good reviews for incoming patches, and > >>>> | it'll make it easier for newcomers. And experienced pros can > >>>> | probably learn a thing as well. > >>>> | > >>>> | Again, to be clear, I don't propose we migrate anything to > >>>> | Phabricator from, say, Trac. There's no real pressure to do so and > >>>> | it would be tons of work. I only propose we use it for code review, > >>>> | which is perfectly fine, and how other projects like LLVM do code > >>>> | review (they use Bugzilla). > >>>> | > >>>> | I also don't think the usage of Phabricator should be mandatory > >>>> | (unless we decide that later because we like it), but I would like > >>>> | to see people use it if possible. > >>>> | > >>>> | [1] http://phabricator.org > >>>> | > >>>> | -- > >>>> | Regards, > >>>> | > >>>> | Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant > >>>> | Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/ > >>>> | _______________________________________________ > >>>> | ghc-devs mailing list > >>>> | [email protected] > >>>> | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> ghc-devs mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ghc-devs mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ghc-devs mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
