[GHC DevOps Group] Phabricator -> GitHub?

[Manuel M T Chakravarty]

[RESENT MESSAGE — see https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devops-group/2017-October/000004.html]


> From: "Boespflug, Mathieu" <m at tweag.io>
> Subject: Aw: [GHC DevOps Group] Phabricator -> GitHub?
> Date: 9. Oktober 2017 um 23:02:32 GMT+11
> To: Manuel M T Chakravarty <manuel.chakravarty at tweag.io>
> Cc: "ghc-devops-group at haskell.org" <ghc-devops-group at haskell.org>
> 
> On 9 October 2017 at 13:23, Manuel M T Chakravarty
> <manuel.chakravarty at tweag.io> wrote:
>> Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>:
>> 
>> I don’t have a well-informed opinion, but in instinct is to follow the
>> mainstream even if a technically-better alternative exists, unless it’s a
>> LOT better.  For the reasons Manuel outlines.
>> 
>> Am I right that GitHub code review has improved?
>> 
>> It has improved since this issue was discussed last. I believe one of the
>> main criticisms in the past was that while people could comment on
>> individual lines of a proposed contributions (aka pull request), there was
>> no way to tie those into a code review unit. This facility has since been
>> added.
> 
> To add to Manuel's comment - from a practical perspective what this
> meant was that in the past if someone had 15 comments to make about
> your pull request during review, you'd be bombarded with 15 emails in
> your inbox. Simon M in particular pointed this out as particularly
> problematic. And I agree. But as Manuel points out, GitHub has now
> fixed this: a reviewer can send a bunch of comments in one batch, and
> attach semantics to it (accept PR / request changes / refuse it etc).
> 
>> Moreover, contributors can now request code reviews from specific
>> reviewers and the repositories can be configured such that contributions
>> cannot be merged until signed off by a reviewer.
> 
> Indeed. There is also a new related feature, and likely one that may
> prove quite useful for a large project like GHC. You can enforce
> things like "all changes to template-haskell need to be reviewed by
> person X", or "person Y is the gatekeeper for all type checker related
> changes" etc. That said - this is just extra mechanism that large
> GitHub projects (and there are many) have lived without it okay until
> recently (e.g. the Nixpkgs project, with ~2k commits every month).
> _______________________________________________
> Ghc-devops-group mailing list
> Ghc-devops-group at haskell.org
> https://haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devops-group
> Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:
> 
> Von: "Boespflug, Mathieu" <m at tweag.io>
> Betreff: Aw: [GHC DevOps Group] Phabricator -> GitHub?
> Datum: 9. Oktober 2017 um 23:02:32 GMT+11
> An: Manuel M T Chakravarty <manuel.chakravarty at tweag.io>
> Kopie: Simon Peyton-Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>, "ghc-devops-group at haskell.org" <ghc-devops-group at haskell.org>
> 
> On 9 October 2017 at 13:23, Manuel M T Chakravarty
> <manuel.chakravarty at tweag.io> wrote:
>> Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>:
>> 
>> I don’t have a well-informed opinion, but in instinct is to follow the
>> mainstream even if a technically-better alternative exists, unless it’s a
>> LOT better.  For the reasons Manuel outlines.
>> 
>> Am I right that GitHub code review has improved?
>> 
>> It has improved since this issue was discussed last. I believe one of the
>> main criticisms in the past was that while people could comment on
>> individual lines of a proposed contributions (aka pull request), there was
>> no way to tie those into a code review unit. This facility has since been
>> added.
> 
> To add to Manuel's comment - from a practical perspective what this
> meant was that in the past if someone had 15 comments to make about
> your pull request during review, you'd be bombarded with 15 emails in
> your inbox. Simon M in particular pointed this out as particularly
> problematic. And I agree. But as Manuel points out, GitHub has now
> fixed this: a reviewer can send a bunch of comments in one batch, and
> attach semantics to it (accept PR / request changes / refuse it etc).
> 
>> Moreover, contributors can now request code reviews from specific
>> reviewers and the repositories can be configured such that contributions
>> cannot be merged until signed off by a reviewer.
> 
> Indeed. There is also a new related feature, and likely one that may
> prove quite useful for a large project like GHC. You can enforce
> things like "all changes to template-haskell need to be reviewed by
> person X", or "person Y is the gatekeeper for all type checker related
> changes" etc. That said - this is just extra mechanism that large
> GitHub projects (and there are many) have lived without it okay until
> recently (e.g. the Nixpkgs project, with ~2k commits every month).
> Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:
> 
> Von: "Boespflug, Mathieu" <m at tweag.io>
> Betreff: Aw: [GHC DevOps Group] Phabricator -> GitHub?
> Datum: 9. Oktober 2017 um 23:02:32 GMT+11
> An: Manuel M T Chakravarty <manuel.chakravarty at tweag.io>
> Kopie: Simon Peyton-Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>, "ghc-devops-group at haskell.org" <ghc-devops-group at haskell.org>
> 
> On 9 October 2017 at 13:23, Manuel M T Chakravarty
> <manuel.chakravarty at tweag.io> wrote:
>> Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>:
>> 
>> I don’t have a well-informed opinion, but in instinct is to follow the
>> mainstream even if a technically-better alternative exists, unless it’s a
>> LOT better.  For the reasons Manuel outlines.
>> 
>> Am I right that GitHub code review has improved?
>> 
>> It has improved since this issue was discussed last. I believe one of the
>> main criticisms in the past was that while people could comment on
>> individual lines of a proposed contributions (aka pull request), there was
>> no way to tie those into a code review unit. This facility has since been
>> added.
> 
> To add to Manuel's comment - from a practical perspective what this
> meant was that in the past if someone had 15 comments to make about
> your pull request during review, you'd be bombarded with 15 emails in
> your inbox. Simon M in particular pointed this out as particularly
> problematic. And I agree. But as Manuel points out, GitHub has now
> fixed this: a reviewer can send a bunch of comments in one batch, and
> attach semantics to it (accept PR / request changes / refuse it etc).
> 
>> Moreover, contributors can now request code reviews from specific
>> reviewers and the repositories can be configured such that contributions
>> cannot be merged until signed off by a reviewer.
> 
> Indeed. There is also a new related feature, and likely one that may
> prove quite useful for a large project like GHC. You can enforce
> things like "all changes to template-haskell need to be reviewed by
> person X", or "person Y is the gatekeeper for all type checker related
> changes" etc. That said - this is just extra mechanism that large
> GitHub projects (and there are many) have lived without it okay until
> recently (e.g. the Nixpkgs project, with ~2k commits every month).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devops-group/attachments/20171010/c884000a/attachment.html>