PS I couldn't get past the login box at https://phabricator.haskell.org/D4 | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces@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 | | Hello all, | | Recently, while doing server maintenance, several of the administrators | for Haskell.org set up an instance of Phabricator[1], located at | https://phabricator.haskell.org | | For those who aren't aware, Phabricator (or "Phab") is a suite of tools | for software development. Think of it like a polished, semi-private | GitHub with a lot of applications and tools for all kinds of needs. | We've been using it to do issue tracking for Haskell.org maintenance and | like it a lot so far. | | One very nice aspect of Phabricator though is it has a very nice code | review tool, called 'Differential', that is very useful. For people who | have used a tool like Review Board, it's similar. Furthermore, it has a | very convenient userland tool called 'Arcanist' which makes it easy for | newcomers to post a review and get it merged when it's ready all from | the command line. | | I'd like to see if people are interested in using Phab _strictly_ for | code review of GHC patches. It is a dedicated tool specifically for | this, and I think it works much better than Trac or inline GitHub | comments. | | Also, Phab can also support post-commit reviews. So if I touch something | in the runtime system and just push, perhaps Simon or Edward would like | to look, and they can be alerted right when I do this, and then yell if | I did something stupid. | | Before I go much further, I'd like to ask: is there *any* interest in | this? Or are people satisifed with Trac? The primary motivations are | roughly, in no particular order: | | 1) Code review is good for everyone, a good way for people to learn the | code and ask questions, and useful to give feedback to newcomers. | And even experienced GHC hackers can learn things from reading code, as | we all do regularly, or find things that need cleanup. | | 2) Phabricator in particular makes it very easy to submit patches for | review. To submit a patch, I just run the command 'arc diff' and it Does | The Right Thing. It also makes it easy to ensure people are | *alerted* when a patch might be relevant to them. | | 3) They can be uploaded and created from the command line, and merged | easily afterwords the same way. This is particularly useful for | newcomers, and for me. :) | | 4) Differential is dedicated to code review, and much better at it than | just reading patches on Trac IMO. | | 5) It supports both post-commit code review, as well as pre-commit | review. Post commit would be especially useful for us too, I think. | | Point #2 and #3 are mostly relevant for me, because I mostly handle | incoming patches. But I think in general it would be nice, and make it a | lot easier for newcomers to submit patches, and us to look over them. | | Here's an example of a Differential code review: | | https://phabricator.haskell.org/D4 | | This is a demo using my 'wip/ermsb' patch. You'll need to create an | account to login, but it shouldn't be much trouble, you can login | several ways. I'll fix the login requirement soon. Feel free to read the | code, comment on it, and play around. It's more of a demonstration, but | real code review would be welcome too. :) | | If people are interested in doing this, I can add notes to the wiki | pages for newcomers, and I'll send another email about Phab so people | can understand it a little better. But I want to ask first. | | There is an argument that our team is so small, code review has | unnecessary burdens. But I think Phab could help a lot with tracking | outside patches and getting good reviews for incoming patches, and it'll | make it easier for newcomers. And experienced pros can probably learn a | thing as well. | | Again, to be clear, I don't propose we migrate anything to Phabricator | from, say, Trac. There's no real pressure to do so and it would be tons | of work. I only propose we use it for code review, which is perfectly | fine, and how other projects like LLVM do code review (they use | Bugzilla). | | I also don't think the usage of Phabricator should be mandatory (unless | we decide that later because we like it), but I would like to see people | use it if possible. | | [1] http://phabricator.org | | -- | Regards, | | Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant | Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/ | _______________________________________________ | ghc-devs mailing list | ghc-devs@haskell.org | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs