Re: Launch of Phabricator and Lando for mozilla-central

2018-06-06 Thread Xidorn Quan
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018, at 12:57 AM, Mark Côté wrote: > Phabricator is a suite of applications, but we are primarily using the > code-review tool, called Differential, which will be taking the place of > MozReview and Splinter. Bug tracking will continue to be done with > Bugzilla, which is

Re: Launch of Phabricator and Lando for mozilla-central

2018-06-06 Thread Mark Côté
On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 15:18:43 UTC-4, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: > On 6/6/18 3:03 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > On 6/6/18 2:52 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: > > Mozreview will show me the equivalent of "diff -r B -r P1", "diff -r P1 > > -r P2" and "diff -r P2 -r P3".  If there are then edits to

Re: Launch of Phabricator and Lando for mozilla-central

2018-06-06 Thread Jan-Ivar Bruaroey
On 6/6/18 3:03 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 6/6/18 2:52 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: Mozreview will show me the equivalent of "diff -r B -r P1", "diff -r P1 -r P2" and "diff -r P2 -r P3".  If there are then edits to P1 to produce Q1, the diff revision slider will let me choose between "diff -r

Re: Launch of Phabricator and Lando for mozilla-central

2018-06-06 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 6/6/18 2:52 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: Sorry, I shouldn't have assumed. FWIW mozReview handles all this exceedingly well today IMHO, using the "Diff Revision" slider, even for the whole patch set. Sort of. As long as people don't mess up their mozreview ids One example of "better"

Re: Launch of Phabricator and Lando for mozilla-central

2018-06-06 Thread Jan-Ivar Bruaroey
On 6/6/18 1:49 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 6/6/18 1:41 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: I think bz is asking about mozReview's ability to handle multiple commits in a single review (and handle updates in both dimensions). This fits the hg evolve model well, and was AFAIK a unique workflow of

Re: Launch of Phabricator and Lando for mozilla-central

2018-06-06 Thread Chris AtLee
This is really great news, I'm really excited to start using it! Automated landings from code review is such a game changer for productivity and security. Congrats to everyone involved. Cheers, Chris On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 at 11:01, Mark Côté wrote: > > The Engineering Workflow team is happy to

Re: Launch of Phabricator and Lando for mozilla-central

2018-06-06 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 6/6/18 1:49 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: Basically, I want some equivalent to "hg bzexport" or something better One example of "better" would be being able to see "the diff with the first N patches applied" without having to do painstaking work. This is something the "attach patches to

Re: Launch of Phabricator and Lando for mozilla-central

2018-06-06 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 6/6/18 1:41 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: I think bz is asking about mozReview's ability to handle multiple commits in a single review (and handle updates in both dimensions). This fits the hg evolve model well, and was AFAIK a unique workflow of mozReview. This isn't actually what I was

Re: Launch of Phabricator and Lando for mozilla-central

2018-06-06 Thread Jan-Ivar Bruaroey
On 6/6/18 11:48 AM, Mark Côté wrote: On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 11:18:43 UTC-4, Boris Zbarsky wrote: * Stacked revisions. If you have a stack of revisions, that is, two or more revisions with parent-child relationships, Lando cannot land them all at once. Does Differential support this case

Re: Launch of Phabricator and Lando for mozilla-central

2018-06-06 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 6/6/18 12:20 PM, Mark Côté wrote: Another good question. :) Given that it is also a rich web app, I'm tempted to say "not awesome", but I'll have to try it out. If it is indeed not awesome, we can try to work with upstream to improve the situation. OK. To be clear, the offline support

Re: Launch of Phabricator and Lando for mozilla-central

2018-06-06 Thread Mark Côté
On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 12:08:49 UTC-4, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 6/6/18 11:48 AM, Mark Côté wrote: > > Good question. Probably, as it has different uses, but it shouldn't be > > used to work around Phabricator. :) > > A related question: How is Phabricator's offline support? This was a >

Re: Launch of Phabricator and Lando for mozilla-central

2018-06-06 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 6/6/18 11:48 AM, Mark Côté wrote: Good question. Probably, as it has different uses, but it shouldn't be used to work around Phabricator. :) A related question: How is Phabricator's offline support? This was a continuous pain point for me with mozreview: it was basically impossible to

Re: Launch of Phabricator and Lando for mozilla-central

2018-06-06 Thread Mark Côté
On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 11:18:43 UTC-4, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 6/6/18 10:57 AM, Mark Côté wrote: > > An upcoming post will outline the plans for the deprecation, archival, and > > decommission of MozReview, with Splinter to follow. > > Just a quick question: will Bugzilla's "edit

Re: Launch of Phabricator and Lando for mozilla-central

2018-06-06 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 6/6/18 10:57 AM, Mark Côté wrote: An upcoming post will outline the plans for the deprecation, archival, and decommission of MozReview, with Splinter to follow. Just a quick question: will Bugzilla's "edit attachment as comment" functionality remain? * Stacked revisions. If you have a

Launch of Phabricator and Lando for mozilla-central

2018-06-06 Thread Mark Côté
The Engineering Workflow team is happy to announce the release of Phabricator and Lando for general use. Going forward, Phabricator will be the primary code-review tool for modifications to the mozilla-central repository, replacing both MozReview and Splinter. Lando is an all-new

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

2018-06-06 Thread bpostelnicu
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:21:05 AM UTC+3, gsqu...@mozilla.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:35:59 AM UTC+10, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > On 6/5/18 3:10 PM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > > > I personally would prefer one space at each side when using braces: > > > > > >  , mFoo { 0

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

2018-06-06 Thread Karl Tomlinson
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:22:06 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 4/13/18 9:37 AM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: >> Would people agree to use: >> >>  , mIsRootDefined { false } >> >> Instead of: >> >>  , mIsRootDefined{ false } > > So my take is that we should not use braced initializer syntax in >