Re: Create a ghc-simple-patch-propose list? Re: Notes from Ben's "contribute to ghc" discussion

Thanks for the useful data point Mathieu. I think it should also be noted that GHC contributions spiked after switching to phabricator so it could just be the effect of moving to *some* code review tool. Could you perhaps summarise the salient points in the LLVM thread? It is very long with lots of discussion points. FWIW, I think that we should accept pull requests but only if they are mirrored and reviewed on phabricator. This is important for three reasons: 1. Reviewers only need to look in one place and can clearly see when they are expected to review. Herald rules will also not trigger if a pull request is solely dealt with on github which could mean the right eyes don't land on the ticket. 2. Pull requests (differentials) are able to be referred to by their unique differential number rather than the pull request identifier which clashes with trac ticket numbers. 3. Differentials integrate (and are able to be integrated) with the existing infrastructure. I hope that in the future we improve this integration by moving the issue tracker to maniphest. Facebook have a bot which does the mirroring for some of their repositories but it isn't open-sourced. I believe we should be trying to consolidate rather than spread everything even thinner. Matt On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Boespflug, Mathieu wrote:

Hi Richard!

thanks for creating the pull request with a full proposal. You beat me to it - tried writing up much the same before stopping for dinner, essentially capturing just one of the points in Moritz's earlier (large) proposal. Moritz, I would encourage you like Richard did earlier to split the remaining points in your proposal into separate PR's too.

So Richard, I created a PR to your PR to add in a little bit more detail: keeping the two mirrors in sync, role of the release manager to ensure that adequate reviewers get identified so that patches don't go unnoticed by an interested party who'd specifically want to review the patch on Phabricator, etc.

https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/pull/1

I also moved one of the two choices you mention to the "alternatives" section of the document, thinking that's the pupose of the section.

On another note, I solicited an experience report from Gabriel Scherer earlier this week. The Ocaml community likewise pondered using GitHub back in 2014, and in fact lauched an experiment to that effect. So I was curious to hear how it went after 2 years of data.

You can see the announcement here:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.ocaml.platform/30

Gabriel tells me that the initial situation for Ocaml was different from that of GHC: they had no formal code review tool in use, but would swap around patches on the Mantis issue tracker. Be it as it may, it's interesting to note just how much the number of contributions to Ocaml has increased in recent years, after this experiment started:

https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/graphs/contributors

This experiment is today considered a big success. A key ingredient I gather is that Gabriel volunteered to triage the GitHub PR's and play the go-between to make sure all Mantis users were aware of any proposed changes relevant to them.

The key insight I would put forth here is that how-to-accept-patches and where-to-review-them should be an agreement between the contributor and the assigned reviewer(s), in particular for trivial changes. For any given patch, provided the reviewer(s) is/are game, and provided all protential reviewers are made aware of its existence, it shouldn't matter much whether the patch came from Trac, Phabricator or GitHub.

PS: Gabriel was very kind to also point out that the LLVM community has been big users of Phabricator and pondering introducing GitHub into the mix too. The discussion there should be relevant to this thread:

http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/100310.html

Best,

-- Mathieu Boespflug Founder at http://tweag.io.

-- Mathieu Boespflug Founder at http://tweag.io.

On 29 September 2016 at 20:55, Richard Eisenberg wrote:

...

I have tried to gather the ideas from this thread into a formal proposal: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/11

Please feel free to make suggestions to improve this, especially if I've captured anyone's contributions incorrectly.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Richard A. Eisenberg Asst. Prof. of Computer Science Bryn Mawr College Bryn Mawr, PA, USA cs.brynmawr.edu/~rae

...

On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:20 AM, Christopher Allen wrote:

...

Instead perhaps GitHub's new review system may be the way forward for GHC. It allows you to easily use git in the way it's meant to be used.

Many problems are caused by letting your inner tinkerer/genius tailor dictate how things should be dealt with. Better to cut the gordian knot. I think Michael's right.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Michael Sloan wrote:

...

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Eric Seidel wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016, at 18:37, Ben Gamari wrote:

...

Moritz Angermann writes:

> All that arc essentially does is, compute the diff from an offset > (e.g. master) to the current HEAD and upload that to a new or > existing > (--update) differential. It also adds some meta information about > the > range, such that arc patch supposedly knows into which commit to > apply > the patch to. > Sure, but this leads to generally unreviewable patches IMHO. In order to stay sane I generally split up my work into a set of standalone patches with git rebase and then create a Diff of each of these commits. Phabricator supports this by having a notion of dependencies between Diffs, but arcanist has no sensible scheme for taking a branch and conveniently producing a series of Diffs.

I completely understand how this would be frustrating for core contributors (more specifically for people submitting large patches), but for new or casual contributors it's actually quite freeing. I don't have to worry about how messy my local history gets, because arc will throw it all away regardless! It absolves me of an extra responsibility, and lowers the barrier to contributing.

I dislike this workflow because I am already used to doing a lot of git rebasing / amending / auto squashing. So using arc means taking away my ability to write multi commit stories of how the change was crafted. For large changes there are often multiple logical inter related steps. Squashing them into one big commit makes it much harder to review. I can easily do that myself by marking everything as squash in a rebase. It feels like arcanist is just taking away power, not giving it (note i have not used it much - voice of a newbie here)

I am beginning to change my feelings on this, away from thinking of GitHub as an auxilliary source of didferentials. Instead perhaps GitHub's new review system may be the way forward for GHC. It allows you to easily use git in the way it's meant to be used.

-Michael

...

It would be nice to support both workflows though :) _______________________________________________ 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

-- Chris Allen Currently working on http://haskellbook.com _______________________________________________ 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