Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

[Patrice Clement]

Sunday 01 Nov 2015 18:08:06, James Le Cuirot wrote :
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 04:44:39 +1100
> Michael Palimaka  wrote:
> 
> > Phabricator also has all sorts of fancy (optional) features that could
> > be useful for collaborative development (see http://phabricator.org/
> > for more info).
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> Looks nice! I hadn't heard of Phabricator before. It has a good mix of
> open and closed projects using it, according to Wikipedia. I'm using
> GitLab at work, which also does the job but Phabricator would probably
> scale easier being PHP-based rather than Ruby-based; I say that as a
> Ruby developer! I've had Gerrit recommended a few times but while I'm
> sure it's capable, my brief encounters with it have found the interface
> a little overwhelming.
> 
> -- 
> James Le Cuirot (chewi)
> Gentoo Linux Developer


I would very much be able to emerge gerrit on Gentoo. There's no ebuild for it
(yet). Someone filed a bug:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409077

The Android Open Source project use Gerrit as its main code-review tool in
their workflow. 

https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:open

Diffs are shown side-by-side, which I find lacking on Github. Example:

https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/c/175598/7/drivers/platform/goldfish/goldfish_pipe.c@179

Anyway, just my 2 cents on the topic. Have a look and you'll see in terms of
features, I think it's on a par with Github. And it's open source. ;)

-- 
Patrice Clement
Gentoo Linux developer
http://www.gentoo.org


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

[Alexander Berntsen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

phabricator is very problematic in that it is a huge piece of PHP
software that is very difficult to change, and it's virtually
impossible to upstream your changes, unless they are simple bug fixes.

It is tailored to Facebook's workflow. Their workflow does not
coincide with most other people's workflow. It doesn't work for my
company, and I suspect it won't work for Gentoo either.

On the other hand it offers a lot of neat things, so experimenting
with it is good. Thanks for doing this work, Michael. Hopefully it
will lead somewhere.

As an alternative, that I have been meaning to look at, there's
critic[0]. It might be useful for someone to have a look at it.

[0]  
- -- 
Alexander
berna...@gentoo.org
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=6NcA
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

[Michał Górny]

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 04:44:39 +1100
Michael Palimaka  wrote:

> There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull
> requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabricator
> instance against gentoo.git to see how a free alternative might work.
> 
> Here's a few examples of how things could work:
> 
> General post-commit review:
> http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/rGENTOO27ba62d0c7fcabdc79ce82a064b43d67b3b11cca
> 
> Tracking commits with issues that need attention:
> http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/audit/query/open/
> 
> Pre-commit review: http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/D1
> 
> Phabricator also has all sorts of fancy (optional) features that could
> be useful for collaborative development (see http://phabricator.org/ for
> more info).
> 
> What do you think?

At a first glance -- terribly unreadable, wtf is all that tiny stuff
thrown at me all at once? But I guess we can get used to it, or get
some kind of sane theme. Tiny, gray text on a little brighter gray
background with some more shades of gray-cyan around doesn't help
readability at all.

What's the deal with 'rGENTOO56bd759df1d0'? Can't it be made to use
normal commit hashes, or at least put some separator in that? I know
enlightenment people like this kind of stuff but it's neither friendly,
not readable. And it's going to make copy-paste harder.

Second thought, it's slow. I mean, I open a directory and wait a few
seconds for detailed information to appear, with my CPU getting hot for
no good reason. I can only guess how hot the server gets in the
meantime...

GitHub registration is a nice touch. Sad you need to retype the e-mail
address though.

Again, the GUI is far from intuitive. Can inline comments be added only
in diff mode? Since it doesn't want to show the diff for 'huge'
commits, this prevents us from commenting in some contexts.

Does it actually support pull requests at all? All I was able to find
was ability to paste a diff...

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny



pgpbPoowVPFwa.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

[hasufell]

On 11/01/2015 06:44 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull
> requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabricator
> instance against gentoo.git to see how a free alternative might work.
> 
> Here's a few examples of how things could work:
> 
> General post-commit review:
> http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/rGENTOO27ba62d0c7fcabdc79ce82a064b43d67b3b11cca
> 
> Tracking commits with issues that need attention:
> http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/audit/query/open/
> 
> Pre-commit review: http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/D1
> 
> Phabricator also has all sorts of fancy (optional) features that could
> be useful for collaborative development (see http://phabricator.org/ for
> more info).
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 

phabricator is horrible. I'll definitely use it less (if at all) than
bugzilla.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

[James Le Cuirot]

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 04:44:39 +1100
Michael Palimaka  wrote:

> Phabricator also has all sorts of fancy (optional) features that could
> be useful for collaborative development (see http://phabricator.org/
> for more info).
> 
> What do you think?

Looks nice! I hadn't heard of Phabricator before. It has a good mix of
open and closed projects using it, according to Wikipedia. I'm using
GitLab at work, which also does the job but Phabricator would probably
scale easier being PHP-based rather than Ruby-based; I say that as a
Ruby developer! I've had Gerrit recommended a few times but while I'm
sure it's capable, my brief encounters with it have found the interface
a little overwhelming.

-- 
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer


pgpEwqbKFIfeO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

[Michael Palimaka]

There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull
requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabricator
instance against gentoo.git to see how a free alternative might work.

Here's a few examples of how things could work:

General post-commit review:
http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/rGENTOO27ba62d0c7fcabdc79ce82a064b43d67b3b11cca

Tracking commits with issues that need attention:
http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/audit/query/open/

Pre-commit review: http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/D1

Phabricator also has all sorts of fancy (optional) features that could
be useful for collaborative development (see http://phabricator.org/ for
more info).

What do you think?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

[hydra]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:

>
> Does it actually support pull requests at all? All I was able to find
> was ability to paste a diff...
>
>
Phabricator supports both pre-commit code review and post-commit code
review. It's not a pull request, but code review (via the differential
tool). The post-commit code review is done via the audit tool.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

[William Hubbs]

On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 08:23:22PM +0100, hasufell wrote:
> On 11/01/2015 06:44 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull
> > requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabricator
> > instance against gentoo.git to see how a free alternative might work.
> > 
> > Here's a few examples of how things could work:
> > 
> > General post-commit review:
> > http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/rGENTOO27ba62d0c7fcabdc79ce82a064b43d67b3b11cca
> > 
> > Tracking commits with issues that need attention:
> > http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/audit/query/open/
> > 
> > Pre-commit review: http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/D1
> > 
> > Phabricator also has all sorts of fancy (optional) features that could
> > be useful for collaborative development (see http://phabricator.org/ for
> > more info).
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 
> > 

My question is this.

Does it offer interfaces other than the web -- such as an API or command
line client?

If not, I wouldn't use it.

Thanks,

William


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

[hasufell]

On 11/01/2015 08:50 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> On 01.11.2015 20:23, hasufell wrote:
>> On 11/01/2015 06:44 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>> There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull
>>> requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabricator
>>> instance against gentoo.git to see how a free alternative might work.
>>>
>>> Here's a few examples of how things could work:
>>>
>>> General post-commit review:
>>> http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/rGENTOO27ba62d0c7fcabdc79ce82a064b43d67b3b11cca
>>>
>>> Tracking commits with issues that need attention:
>>> http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/audit/query/open/
>>>
>>> Pre-commit review: http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/D1
>>>
>>> Phabricator also has all sorts of fancy (optional) features that could
>>> be useful for collaborative development (see http://phabricator.org/ for
>>> more info).
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> phabricator is horrible. I'll definitely use it less (if at all) than
>> bugzilla.
>>
> 
> On 10.10.2015 16:15, Julian Ospald wrote:
>> That's a great start for us, having developers announce publicly that
>> they will ignore our project or require us to create bugs for every
>> missing "|| die" in an ebuild.
> 
> *chuckles*
> 
> 

I don't know how you confuse your ignorant behavior of blacklisting a
whole project with the liberty of gentoo developers to choose the
contribution platform which fits best for their use case (be it email,
IRC, bugzilla, phabricator or github).

But I didn't expect any different behavior from you. I think you should
re-read our CoC and stop posting mails that are just flame.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 11/01/2015 04:18 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> 
> My question is this.
> 
> Does it offer interfaces other than the web -- such as an API or command
> line client?
> 
> If not, I wouldn't use it.

There's Arcanist, but there are no releases. You're supposed to clone
the git repo. Arcanist requires libphutil, and the install instructions
are basically "git clone them both to the same place." It looks like
Bertrand Jacquin may have fixed that though (up a bit in this thread).

Another problem is that Arcanist (client) and Phabricator (server) are
closely tied. So if you need to access two Phabricators, you probably
need two copies of Arcanist.

I don't want to pooh-pooh the idea too much, but I used Arcanist for GHC
and this page summarizes my experience:

  https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/WhyNotPhabricator

The code reviews themselves were nice, though. It's just arcanist that
gives you that feeling of "oh god something went wrong I'll just build a
new computer and start over."

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

[Bertrand Jacquin]

You might be interested in a few ebuild I made for it for Enlightenment:

http://git.meleeweb.net/gentoo/portage.git/tree/dev-php/libphutil
http://git.meleeweb.net/gentoo/portage.git/tree/www-client/arcanist
http://git.meleeweb.net/gentoo/portage.git/tree/www-apps/phabricator

Cheers

On 01/11/2015 17:44, Michael Palimaka wrote:

There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull
requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabricator
instance against gentoo.git to see how a free alternative might work.

Here's a few examples of how things could work:

General post-commit review:
http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/rGENTOO27ba62d0c7fcabdc79ce82a064b43d67b3b11cca

Tracking commits with issues that need attention:
http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/audit/query/open/

Pre-commit review: http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/D1

Phabricator also has all sorts of fancy (optional) features that could
be useful for collaborative development (see http://phabricator.org/ 
for

more info).

What do you think?


--
Bertrand

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

[Luca Barbato]

On 01/11/15 23:07, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/01/2015 12:44 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull
>> requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabricator
>> instance against gentoo.git to see how a free alternative might work.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
> 
> Thanks for working on this. I personally didn't like Phabricator very
> much when I used it, but I'm glad someone is trying out code review
> platforms. I could live with it.

Most of the code-review platforms are cumbersome and inefficient
depending on the purpose.

Phab has some nice ideas (gamification is one of them), but overall I
feel interacting with it less pleasant than interacting with github and
gitlab (both have different defects).

Personally I wouldn't mind having a gitlab setup if there is consensus
in going in that direction.

If we want to try to do something more simple, patchwork or plaid (from
truly yours =p) might be options as well.

lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 11/01/2015 12:44 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull
> requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabricator
> instance against gentoo.git to see how a free alternative might work.
> 
> ...
> 
> What do you think?
> 

Thanks for working on this. I personally didn't like Phabricator very
much when I used it, but I'm glad someone is trying out code review
platforms. I could live with it.

The big question for me is, does the apache user have write access to
the gentoo.git repo? If it does, are we all comfortable with allowing a
bajillion-line PHP application unchecked access to our repo? That's the
serious problem I see with Gerrit, Gitlab and the rest.