Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:34:21 -0700 From: Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: Lexi Winter <lexi@le-fay.org>, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org, imp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 67783db661f8 - main - CONTRIBUTING: request only one submission type per change Message-ID: <CAGMYy3vN-OW%2BRwhNF7aPc=RyZxQd3=jmS8L7e9_dFHFUbGWG6g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <ZigFzAIs7eZQ3DMW@cell.glebi.us> References: <202404181915.43IJFEoG020480@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <ZiF0PH5yWJlbaFo8@ilythia.eden.le-fay.org> <ZigFzAIs7eZQ3DMW@cell.glebi.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--000000000000b68e410616c8a429 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Possibly slightly off-topic, but have we considered some other alternatives to Phabricator, like Gerrit <https://www.gerritcodereview.com/>? (My opinion might be biased as we use Gerrit at $WORK). I liked the review UI more (the context representation is cleaner compared to Phabricator and one can easily navigate between different amendment revisions of one change), and it is integrated with Git with a customizable workflow (e.g. can have complex submit requirements, like a change must be approved by a different person, has to pass certain presubmit workflow, etc.) and is actively developed and maintained (both Android and Chrome makes heavy use of Gerrit). Cheers, On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:02=E2=80=AFPM Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org= > wrote: > Lexi, > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 08:27:56PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote: > L> as a non-committer src contributor, i've discussed this with imp@ quit= e > L> a bit and i think this should be phrased more strongly in favour of > L> using GitHub for commits. > L> > L> the current situation is that Phabricator is useless for non-committer= s > L> because 1) you have to know who can review your commit, and 2) once yo= ur > L> commit is reviewed, someone has to commit it, and Phabricator doesn't > L> address this. > > The 1) is actually not as bad. Phabricator has subscribtion hooks, and > many > committers have rules installed to get notifications of new reviews that > touch certain paths of code. > > The problem 2), IMHO, equally applies to github and Phabricator. > > L> i think it might make more sense to suggest that people submit all > L> patches via either GitHub or Bugzilla, and only use Phabricator if > L> specifically asked to. > > I don't agree here. Looks like we should address those phabricator > submissions that go unnoticed due to lack of maintainers of a code. > I don't think submitting same patch to github will improve visibility. > > > -- > Gleb Smirnoff > --000000000000b68e410616c8a429 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:monospac= e,monospace">Possibly slightly off-topic, but have we considered some other= alternatives to Phabricator, like <a href=3D"https://www.gerritcodereview.= com/">Gerrit</a>?=C2=A0 (My opinion might be biased as we use Gerrit at $WO= RK).=C2=A0 I liked the review UI more (the context representation is cleane= r compared to Phabricator and one can easily navigate between different ame= ndment revisions of one change), and it is integrated with Git with a custo= mizable workflow (e.g. can have complex submit requirements, like a change = must be approved by a different person, has to pass certain presubmit workf= low, etc.) and is actively developed and maintained (both Android and Chrom= e makes heavy use of Gerrit).</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"fo= nt-family:monospace,monospace"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style= =3D"font-family:monospace,monospace">Cheers,<br></div></div><br><div class= =3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Apr 23, 2024= at 12:02=E2=80=AFPM Gleb Smirnoff <<a href=3D"mailto:glebius@freebsd.or= g">glebius@freebsd.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q= uote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,2= 04);padding-left:1ex">=C2=A0 Lexi,<br> <br> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 08:27:56PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote:<br> L> as a non-committer src contributor, i've discussed this with imp@= quite<br> L> a bit and i think this should be phrased more strongly in favour of<b= r> L> using GitHub for commits.<br> L> <br> L> the current situation is that Phabricator is useless for non-committe= rs<br> L> because 1) you have to know who can review your commit, and 2) once y= our<br> L> commit is reviewed, someone has to commit it, and Phabricator doesn&#= 39;t<br> L> address this.<br> <br> The 1) is actually not as bad.=C2=A0 Phabricator has subscribtion hooks, an= d many<br> committers have rules installed to get notifications of new reviews that<br= > touch certain paths of code.<br> <br> The problem 2), IMHO, equally applies to github and Phabricator.<br> <br> L> i think it might make more sense to suggest that people submit all<br= > L> patches via either GitHub or Bugzilla, and only use Phabricator if<br= > L> specifically asked to.<br> <br> I don't agree here. Looks like we should address those phabricator<br> submissions that go unnoticed due to lack of maintainers of a code.<br> I don't think submitting same patch to github will improve visibility.<= br> <br> <br> -- <br> Gleb Smirnoff<br> </blockquote></div> --000000000000b68e410616c8a429--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGMYy3vN-OW%2BRwhNF7aPc=RyZxQd3=jmS8L7e9_dFHFUbGWG6g>