Phabricator workflow vs. GitHub

Simon Marlow marlowsd at gmail.com
Fri Oct 5 09:55:51 UTC 2018


I think the article is assuming the base for `arc diff` is always the
parent revision, i.e. `arc diff HEAD^`, which is how the workflow works
best. Strangely I don't think the open source Phabricator is set up to do
this by default so you have to actually type `arc diff HEAD^` (there's
probably some setting somewhere so that you can make this the default).

On the diff in Phabricator you can enter the dependencies manually. Really
the tooling ought to do this for you (and at Facebook our internal tooling
does do this) but for now manually specifying the dependencies is not
terrible. Then Phabricator shows you the nice dependency tree in the UI, so
you can see the state of all of your diffs in the stack.

Cheers
Simon

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 04:30, Niklas Hamb├╝chen <mail at nh2.me> wrote:

> There are some things in these argumentations that I don't get.
>
> When you have a stack of commits on top of master, like:
>
> * C
> |
> * B
> |
> * A
> |
> * master
>
> What do you use as base for `arc diff` for each of them?
>
> If B depends on A (the patch expressed by B doesn't apply if A was applied
> first),
> do you still use master as a base for B, or do you use Phabricator's
> feature to have diffs depend on other diffs?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20181005/5457703d/attachment.html>


More information about the ghc-devs mailing list