I would like to add a third blocker to Mehdi's list: 3) We first would need to finish our ongoing Bugzilla to GitHub Issues migration: At the moment the plan is to use the old bug ID in bugzilla as issue ID on GitHub. However issues and Pull Requests share the same namespace. So once we start using Pull Requests this would eat up the numbers for the bugs/issues.
This is certainly not a show stopper, but something to decide on. I see two options here: 1) We delay using Pull Requests until the Bugzilla to Issues migration is completed. 2) We give up the requirement to keep the bug IDs and assign the new IDs as they are available. Best, Christian On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 12:56 AM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > We talked about this with the IWG (Infrastructure Working Group) just > last week coincidentally. > Two major blocking tracks that were identified at the roundtable > during the LLVM Dev Meeting exactly 2 years ago are still an issue > today: > > 1) Replacement for Herald rules. This is what allows us to subscribe > and track new revisions or commits based on paths in the repo or other > criteria. We could build a replacement based on GitHub action or any > other kind of service, but this is a bit tricky (how do you store > emails privately? etc.). I have looked around online but I didn't find > another OSS project (or external company) providing a similar service > for GitHub unfortunately, does anyone know of any? > > 2) Support for stacked commits. I can see how to structure this > somehow assuming we would push pull-request branches in the main repo > (with one new commit per branch and cascading the pull-requests from > one branch to the other), otherwise this will be a major regression > compared to the current workflow. > > What remains unknown to me is the current state of GitHub management > of comments across `git commit --amend` and force push to update a > branch. > > Others may have other items to add! > > -- > Mehdi > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:39 PM Brian Cain via llvm-dev > <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > How far are we from a workflow that leverages Github's Pull Requests? > Is there some consensus that it's a desired end goal, but some features are > missing? Or do we prefer to use a workflow like this for the long term? > > > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 4:54 PM Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev < > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > >> As I, and others have noticed, it seems that as of today, there’s some > certificate issue with arcanist. (See: > https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-September/153019.html) The > fix seems simple, and a PR is up, but looking through the PR activity, it > seems that the PR will not be accepted because Phabricator is no longer > being maintained. It seems that arc has become the first casualty of the > discontinuation of maintenance of phabricator. > >> > >> > >> > >> I know that arc is not universally used, but I think it’s a serious > blow to many people’s workflows. I think that MyDeveloperDay’s question > might have just become a bit more urgent. > >> > >> > >> > >> I suppose in the short-term, we could fork the phabricator repos in > order to fix little issues like this. Alternately, we should probably stop > recommending arcanist (unless we want to provide instructions on how to fix > any breakages that come along). > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Chris Tetreault > >> > >> > >> > >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of > MyDeveloper Day via llvm-dev > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 10:17 AM > >> To: llvm-dev <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>; cfe-commits < > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> > >> Subject: [llvm-dev] Phabricator Creator Pulling the Plug > >> > >> > >> > >> WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary > of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. > >> > >> All > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm a massive fan of Phabricator, and I know there is often lots of > contentious discussion about its relative merits vs github, > >> > >> > >> > >> But unless I missed this, was there any discussion regarding the recent > "Winding Down" announcement of Phabricator? and what it might mean for us > in LLVM > >> > >> > >> > >> See: > >> > >> > https://admin.phacility.com/phame/post/view/11/phacility_is_winding_down_operations/ > >> > >> https://www.phacility.com/phabricator/ > >> > >> > >> > >> Personally I'm excited by the concept of a community driven replacement > ( https://we.phorge.it/) . > >> > >> epriestley did a truly amazing job, it wasn't open to public > contributions. Perhaps more open development could lead to closing some of > the github gaps that were of concern. > >> > >> > >> > >> MyDeveloperDay > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> LLVM Developers mailing list > >> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LLVM Developers mailing list > > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
