So you're suggesting that GitHub would function as a sort of alternate front-end to Phab. While I've grown to enjoy Phab quite a bit, I still strongly dislike arc, which tries to be too clever for my tastes. Provided the integration works smoothly, I quite like this idea.
Richard > On Sep 27, 2016, at 5:32 PM, Michael Sloan <mgsl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You're welcome Richard! I look forward to helping make it happen. In > the other thread, Alexander Vershilov mentioned that we might instead > consider the following more straightforward workflow: > > 0) Have a bot that watches github for PRs. > 1) Submit whatever you want to github as a PR. > 2) It will be automatically closed and migrated to Phabricator. I > would like it to automatically create a Phabricator account if you do > not already have one. The message from the bot will tell you about > this action, and explain how to log in, perhaps even linking to > resources about Phabricator. > > Is this worth it? I think it is for the one-off cases. However, you > will have to be prepared that this means that people won't have > arcanist setup, and therefore are less likely to actually iterate on > their PR. Perhaps we should extend this to the following: > > 3) Subsequent pushes to the branch for the PR will update the > Phabricator differential as if you had pushed via Arcanist. I think > with this in place, we would have a fully streamlined system that > allows people to use their familiar GitHub workflows, without needing > to learn Arcanist. Interactions would then still occur on , of > course. > > This way, GHC HQ doesn't even need to learn to use this new "ghc-hub" > tool! Could name the bot that, though! > > Thoughts? I think it would be great for this to be proposed formally > soon so that we can make it happen. I am eager to be able to use my > normal git workflows, as my little experience with Arcanist induced > some head-scratching. Not the fault of the tool, just a result of > lack of familiarity. > > -Michael > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Richard Eisenberg <r...@cs.brynmawr.edu> > wrote: >> To sum up, this proposes the following: >> >> 1. Allow PRs on GitHub. >> >> 2. Michael Sloan to write a new utility, ghc-hub, which automates tasks >> interfacing between GitHub and Phab. This utility would be used only by GHC >> HQ and not by contributors. >> >> 3. Small GitHub PRs can be merged directly, by ghc-hub. >> >> 4. Larger GitHub PRs can be migrated to Phab by ghc-hub. The contributor >> would be issued a polite email explaining how to set up a Phab account to >> continue to follow their contribution. >> >> Have I captured this accurately? If so, a resounding +1 from me. I’ve wanted >> exactly this for a while. >> >> Is this worth sending through ghc-proposals? >> >> Thanks for volunteering item (2), Michael! >> >> Richard >> >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >> Richard A. Eisenberg >> Asst. Prof. of Computer Science >> Bryn Mawr College >> Bryn Mawr, PA, USA >> cs.brynmawr.edu/~rae >> >>> On Sep 26, 2016, at 11:09 PM, Manuel M T Chakravarty <c...@justtesting.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Sounds like a great idea to me and might alleviate SimonM’s concerns about >>> fragmentation of dev attention. >>> >>> Manuel >>> >>>> Michael Sloan <mgsl...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>> Argh, sent too soon. The first paragraph, revised: >>>> >>>> This sounds like an ideal solution, Ben! As has been discussed many >>>> times before, GitHub has many users familiar with its interface. By >>>> allowing GitHub PRs, the initial contribution barrier will be lowered. If >>>> there is an easy and straightforward process for shifting big patches >>>> to Phabricator, then people who are regularly contributing via GitHub >>>> PRs can be incrementally on-boarded to the Phabricator / Arcanist >>>> workflow. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Michael Sloan <mgsl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> This sounds like an ideal solution, Ben! As has been discussed many >>>>> times before, GitHub has many users familiar with its interface. By >>>>> allowing GitHub PRs, the initial contribution >>>>> >>>>> I think it would be acceptable for larger GitHub PRs to have some >>>>> automated boilerplate response. Ideally this would look like: >>>>> >>>>> """ >>>>> Thanks for making this patch! I've turned this into a Phab >>>>> Differential xxx and closed this PR. Please create a differential >>>>> account associated with your email address ..." >>>>> """ >>>>> >>>>> The email address can be automatically pulled from commit metadata. >>>>> If one is absent, then this automated process isn't possible. If it >>>>> is present and >>>>> >>>>> So, I'm imagining a utility that interfaces between both GitHub and >>>>> Phab,allowing the following commands: >>>>> >>>>> * "ghc-hub migrate https://github.com/ghc/ghc/pull/1"; - migrates the >>>>> patch to differential. It may attempt to migrate body and title of >>>>> the initial post, but lets not bother with migrating any review data. >>>>> >>>>> * "ghc-hub merge https://github.com/ghc/ghc/pull/1"; - merges the >>>>> patch. This is used for merging small patches. It would not do an >>>>> automated push. Maybe have "--push" also perform the push? So like >>>>> if you are on master, then "ghc-hub merge >>>>> https://github.com/ghc/ghc/pull/1 --push" would merge the patches and >>>>> push to master. >>>>> >>>>> How does this sound? I like the idea a lot, and would enjoy helping >>>>> with implementation, time permitting. I could possibly start hacking >>>>> on it if others give the go ahead of "Yes, lets do that". >>>>> >>>>> -Michael >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Ben Gamari <b...@smart-cactus.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Carter Schonwald <carter.schonw...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In writing the following huge wall of text, I had and idea that I think >>>>>>> many folks would find palatable: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What if simple small patches (such as hypothetical drive by doc patches >>>>>>> ) >>>>>>> had a mailing list where folks could email the simple / small patches as >>>>>>> email attachments plus a body text that summarizes the patch, what it >>>>>>> does, >>>>>>> and why it's simple! >>>>>>> >>>>>> I completely agree that for small (e.g. documentation) patches our >>>>>> current system is quite heavy. For this reason I suggested at ICFP that >>>>>> we simply begin accepting small patches via GitHub pull requests. >>>>>> Frankly, this is less work for me than merging patches from a mailing >>>>>> list and I believe many users feel that GitHub is more accessible than a >>>>>> mailing list. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem of course is what subset of patches do we want to allow to >>>>>> be taken via GitHub. My suggested answer to that is any patch which, if >>>>>> I were to write it myself, I would feel comfortable pushing directly to >>>>>> the tree. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then there is the question of what do we do with pull requests opened >>>>>> which do not satisfy this criterion. In this case I would likely open a >>>>>> Phabricator Differential with the pull request and close the pull >>>>>> request with a link to the Diff. In the ideal case this will inspire the >>>>>> contributor to join the review process on Phabricator; in the worst case >>>>>> review turns up issues in the patch and the user gives up. Either way, at >>>>>> least the contributor feels his patch has been seen and given the >>>>>> attention it deserves. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> - Ben >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ghc-devs mailing list >>>>>> ghc-devs@haskell.org >>>>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ghc-devs mailing list >>>> ghc-devs@haskell.org >>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ghc-devs mailing list >>> ghc-devs@haskell.org >>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >> _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
