[GHC DevOps Group] Phabricator -> GitHub?

[Manuel M T Chakravarty]

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


> Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com <mailto:marlowsd at gmail.com>>:
> 
> On 9 October 2017 at 12:10, Manuel M T Chakravarty <manuel.chakravarty at tweag.io <mailto:manuel.chakravarty at tweag.io>> wrote:
> We will absolutely talk to more developers, but please keep in mind that projects like the Rust and Swift compiler use GitHub. These are projects that are striving and get lots of contributions. Rust had 120 active PRs last week and Swift had 132 active PRs. I don’t quite see what is so different about GHC.
> 
> LLVM uses Phabricator and I didn't count how many PRs they have open, but it looks like a *lot*, and these are all active: https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/query/lks1dJdapQFa/#R <https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/query/lks1dJdapQFa/#R>
> 
> So I don't buy the argument that we have to move to GitHub to get more contributions.  Phabricator is clearly not a barrier for LLVM, so why should it be a barrier for GHC?

Firstly, please let me re-iterate that I do not doubt Phabricator’s utility as a review tool. As for Phabricator as a barrier to entry, LLVM and GHC are very different projects. Since, GCC manoeuvred itself technically and politically into a corner, LLVM essentially has a monopoly in the open-source compiler-backend space. (For example, students in compiler research groups usually have no choice, but to build on LLVM.) In contrast, there are lots of open-source frontends to contribute to.

Moreover, please keep in mind that LLVM is Chris Lattner’s first major OSS project (and when it started, GitHub didn’t even exist). Now, for his second major OSS project, the Swift compiler, he did choose GitHub over Phabricator.

>> - We should use *one* code-review tool only.  Making a transition to a situation where we have two different code review tools (GitHub + reviewable.io <http://reviewable.io/>) would be a step backwards. (after all, one of the arguments below is against learning a new random tool….)
>> 
>> The alternative that we discussed in the past is to better support contributions via GitHub, which we could still do.
> 
> I am not at all arguing for reviewable.io <http://reviewable.io/> (I have never used the latter), but I don’t understand your argument. Firstly, why is GitHub + reviewable.io <http://reviewable.io/> worse than GitHub + Phabricator as mix?
> 
> I’m saying GitHub + reviewable.io <http://reviewable.io/> would be worse than either GitHub alone, or Phabricator alone.

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood what you where saying. Maybe it depends on what we regard as ”better support for contributions" through GitHub. For me, that would mean that contributions can be submitted and reviewed through either GitHub or Phabricator; hence, my comment. Sorry if that wasn’t what you meant.

Cheers,
Manuel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devops-group/attachments/20171010/a4c4d0d4/attachment.html>