Notes from Ben's "contribute to ghc" discussion

[Michael Sloan]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Alexander V Vershilov
<alexander.vershilov at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> About GitHub based contribution. It looks great for me for *all
> types* of the patches. But.. bot (or for some time person) should
> migrate *all* the patches to Phab, closing the threads for comments.
> Bot should write some welcome message than with a link to Phab
> request and intruction how to allow Phab to use github account
> and read email if there is no account yet.
> This way when review had happened author will automatically receive
> all review comments with links to Phab, I'll hardly get that following
> a link to github is any harder than following link to Phab (assuming
> Phab  to login using github account). If user addressed comment
> he should be able to just force-push/update his branch and new revision
> should be created by bot. PR on github should be closed whenever Phab
> request will be closed, so it would be trackable using GitHub only.

I think this could make a great deal of sense.  This will allow us to
use the familiar GitHub interface for creating PRs, but all PRs will
be maintained within phabricator.

Creating a PR should automatically cause the user to create an account
on Phabricator, if possible.

I've done a quick search to see if a tool exists for this, and all I
found was this abandoned patch in the phabricator project itself.
https://secure.phabricator.com/D8775

Unfortunately (or fortunately, hah!), I do not know PHP.  However, if
phabricator has a RESTful API it seems imminently feasible to
implement this as a bot written in Haskell.

> This way github-ish users could use tool that they used to, but also
> reviewers to use the tool they also used to. All the review
> comments will be stored in the single place, no revisions will be lost.
> This way could be automated and there will be no strange questions
> about what is large patch and what is not. The only people who use
> are ones that doesn't use email to receive review comments and can
> use only GitHub interface to read that, but I doubt that such users exists.
>
> --
> Alexander
>
> On 24 September 2016 at 04:44, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs
> <ghc-devs at haskell.org> wrote:
>> Friends
>>
>>
>>
>> Here are the notes I took from session 2 of the Haskell Implementors
>> Meeting.  The bolding is my choice of emphasis.
>>
>>
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>> ·        Doc bugs.    Two kinds
>>
>> o   Typos.   Friction stops me
>>
>> o   Explanations needed e.g. read/show
>>
>> ·        Lightweight pushes
>>
>> ·        Make user manual into its own repo, to make it easier to take pull
>> requests.  But that makes it harder when making synchronised changes to GHC
>> and user manual.
>>
>> ·        Auto-push: Ability to push to Phab and have it committed
>> automatically if it validates.
>>
>> ·        Style guides.  Is having a defined style solving a problem we don’t
>> really have?  One piece of guidance: adhere to the style of the surrounding
>> code.  Low priority.
>>
>> ·        Docker images.   We should have one.
>>
>> ·        Remove old documentation!
>>
>> ·        Cross compilation is difficult.
>>
>> ·        Have a GHC StackOverflow on haskell.org   (Jacob Zalewski
>> jakzale at gmail.com offers to do this! – thank you).  It has a useful new
>> Documentation feature.   Eg this would be good for “how do I look up a
>> RdrName to get a Name… there seem to be six different functions that do
>> that”.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alexander
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs