Phab vs. Trac

[Austin Seipp]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Richard Eisenberg <eir at cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Sometimes, the progress on a particular issue is tracked both on Trac and on Phab. What posts should go where? I know Austin is trying to get Trac to be notified when a relevant post happens on Phab -- great. But, if I have a comment, where should I put it?
>
> Here is my proposed answer: The Phab reviews are a good place for code-specific commentary/feedback but Trac is better for design issues. A rule of thumb might be to pretend that Phab comments are all forgotten in a month or two, whereas Trac comments are expected to be around in 5 years.

I think this is the right idea. We're only using Phabricator for code
review, which means:

 - We should only use it to discuss problems pertinent to the
implementation or patch someone posts.
 - Code reviews will always exist, but in practice they are not the
most important piece of information.

In practice anything requiring a design spec larger than a ticket
probably deserves a wiki page and a once-over on the mailing list.

> Another feature request around Phab/Trac: Is it possible to have a field *at the top of a Trac ticket* that links to the Differential page?

Good idea! This is now done:

https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8634

Look at the top - there is a link to 'Phab:D69', which is the
differential revision hyperlinked properly.

If you use this syntax in Trac now, it will automatically hyperlink
revisions. Perhaps in the future we can shorten it to just 'D69' for
example. But this syntax works now to hyperlink directly to
Phabricator.

> Thanks!
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>

-- 
Regards,

Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/