Re: [GHC DevOps Group] The future of Phabricator

For those of us that like to upload code for review without having to go to a website and click buttons, it looks like there's this CLI tool for GitLab: https://github.com/zaquestion/lab Unfortunately it's written in Go. But I guess that's an improvement over PHP :) Cheers Simon On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 at 16:35, Ben Gamari wrote:

Simon Marlow writes:

...

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 08:59, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:

...

On 2018-11-02 at 08:13:37 +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:

...

I suppose we can do a squash-merge when committing to keep the history clean, but then contributors have a choice - either do GitHub-style where you add commits to a PR to update it and we squash on merge, OR Phabricator-style where you keep the same set of commits and rebase the stack to update it. [..]

Well, if MRs are to be squashed on merge anyway, I'm definitely not going to waste my time carefully grooming a stack of atomic individually validating commits via git-rebase-interactive...

Sorry I wasn't very clear. We would *only* squash if the author had been using the workflow where they add commits to revise the MR. If the author wants to use the stacked-diff-like workflow where they keep a groomed set of commits in the MR, then we would rebase and fast-forward the MR.

My concern here is that we have two different workflows. People used to GitHub would want to use one, and people used to Phabricator would want to use the other. We have to check which workflow people are using so that we can decide whether to squash on merge or not.

Ahh, yes, I see.

...

Ben said:

...

This shouldn't be a problem. One can easily configure a project such that users are *only* allowed to fast-forward/rebase, disallowing the creation of merge commits.

but that doesn't fully address the problem, because the series of commits that would get rebased onto master would include all the commits added to the MR to update it during the review process. Actually what we wanted to do in this case was squash, not rebase+fast-forward.

Indeed, this is a problem that we already have in the case of GitHub pull requests. In most of these cases I end up squashing the branch myself when I merge (in practice this contributes very little overhead; I need to merge GitHub PR's myself anyways as we cannot use GitHub's merge button since github.com:ghc/ghc is merely a mirror of git.haskell.org:ghc).

Of course, if we start taking *all* of our patches via MRs then I agree that this may become a bit more tiresome.

...

If there was a nice way to guide people into using the Phabricator-style workflow, I think that would help a lot.

I think this is primarily a social problem and consequently it is probably best handled by a combination of documentation (both in the contributor documentation and the MR template text) and code review.

One of the things I would like to do in the near future is consolidate (and, in some cases, rewrite) our contributor documentation. The survey indicated that there is plenty of room for improvement here. In this past we have discussed improving in this area but lacked the bandwidth to give the task the attention it deserves. I think now we are in better shape to resource it sufficiently.

Cheers,

- Ben