Better perf for haddock.base, haddock.Cabal (f4aa998)

Ben Gamari ben at
Thu Feb 16 22:01:04 UTC 2017

Joachim Breitner <mail at> writes:

> Hi,
> I guess was merged a bit
> prematurely in that respect.¹
> Greetings,
> Joachim
> ¹ There is a workflow problem with Phab’s DR:
>   * A creates a new DR.
>   * B requests changes. DR now in state “revision needed”
>   * C requests changes. DR still in state “revision needed”
>   * A makes changes. DR now in state “needs review”
>   * C looks at the changes and finds his concern addressed
>     and accepts the revision. DR now in state “accepted”.
>   * G comes along, sees a DR in state “accepted” and lands it.
>   Problem: B did not have the chance to check the new revision.
Actually, the problem in this particular case was the Simon left
comments but didn't request changes. Had he done so the Diff wouldn't
have entered "accepted" state until he accepted. Sorry if I had been a
bit premature in merging this one.

While I understand why this is the case, it can be a bit unfortunate in
the case of an open-source project, where a drive-by reviewer might
leave a comment, the author makes the requested change, and the reviewer
never returns to accept the change. In this case the Diff remains in a
sort of limbo, even if someone else accepts it.

This is to some extent a social problem: In an ideal world reviewers
would continue to submit reviews until the patch is merged. However, in
the case of a project like GHC this is rarely the case. For this reason
I sometimes need to ping reviewers and explicitly ask them to accept


- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list