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
PS I couldn't get past the login box at https://phabricator.haskell.org/D4
| -Original Message-
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Austin
| Seipp
| Sent: 06 June 2014 05:06
| To: ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: RFC: Phabricator for patches and code review
|
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Simon Peyton Jones
wrote:
> 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
> alternativ
I'm fiddling with the access policies a bit, to make it all publicly
viewable. I thought I fixed it, but apparently not...
In the mean time, you can just register an account (with a
username/password, or just use your existing GitHub login!) and
everything will be viewable.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at
So, why not put everything on GutHub and use pull requests and so on?
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
Could not have agreed more with Manuel.
I would also like to point out that one of the missions of the arcanist
tool is to support all version control systems. That have made sense for
FaceBook Inc, who went from Subversion to Git to Mercurial. GHC team
only use git now. I think the consequenc
On 06/07/2014 07:21 AM, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
> So, why not put everything on GutHub and use pull requests and so on?
>
> 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 b
This always gets brought up, but I (still) think there are several
reasons to prefer our own infrastructure over GitHub:
- Phab is far more flexible, especially for review. GitHub doesn't
even have side-by-side diffs (a massive improvement), much less the
suite of tools that make code review easy
I don't think Arcanist forces any particular workflow after working
with it a bit. Generally, all you have to do is checkout a branch,
make some commits on that branch, and run 'arc diff'. Make more
commits on that branch, run 'arc diff' again. When it's ready I can
merge it however I want. This wo
Well, I'm convinced now that you have researched this thoroughly. Thanks
for doing so and addressing mine and Manuel's concerns.
Cheers,
Arash
On 2014-06-07 09:24, Austin Seipp wrote:
This always gets brought up, but I (still) think there are several
reasons to prefer our own infrastructure ov
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
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.
Janek
Dnia niedziela, 8 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
> 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.
Right. I was wondering about the inclusion of phabricator utilities in the GHC
tree - I believe
this was mentioned in the discussion.
> There's a short int
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 favou
Duh, ignore what I wrote. I just realized I'm working on a non-rebased branch
:-)
Janek
Dnia środa, 18 czerwca 2014, Jan Stolarek napisał:
> 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
> ide
Hi all,
I went ahead and took some time to write some stuff down about
Phabricator, including some basic tips on the workflows and
applications here:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Phabricator
It's definitely going to need more expanding. Do let me know if
anything is confusing.
On Wed,
Thanks so much for writing this! I have some questions:
1) I'm just setting things up on my machine. It says to `arc
install-certificate` in my GHC directory. Is it important precisely which clone
of GHC my directory is set up against? For example, my "pull" origin is
git://git.haskell.org/ghc.
I find the automatic squashing to rather harmful to the commit history. So
if you have several nice commits that you want to send for review, don't
use arc land to commit them, as it will ruin the history. Instead git push
them as per normal and use `arc close` (IIRC) to close the code review. I
al
Richard,
Thanks, these are all actually really excellent questions.
> 1) I'm just setting things up on my machine. It says to `arc
> install-certificate` in my GHC directory. Is it important precisely which
> clone of GHC my directory is set up against? For example, my "pull" origin is
> git:/
Personally I don't particularly mind the fact Phabricator squashes
things and adds onto the URL. For one it means we can always refer to
the differential revision solely by the commit itself, as opposed to
digging up some history. But also, Phab generally asks you to put some
useful information in
-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Austin
| Seipp
| Sent: 24 June 2014 18:13
| To: Richard Eisenberg
| Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Phabricator for patches and code review
|
| Richard,
|
| Thanks, these are all actually really excellent questions.
|
| > 1) I'm just setting things
If you have several commits, then use separate 'arc diff' commands to
send them to Phab. You can do this even if they depend on each other
("stacked diffs"). My usual workflow is something like this:
git checkout -b hacking master
.. hack hack ..
git commit
arc diff HEAD^
.. hack hack ..
git
23 matches
Mail list logo
