Phabricator workflow vs. GitHub

Simon Marlow marlowsd at gmail.com
Sat Oct 6 20:50:26 UTC 2018


On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 15:22, Niklas Hamb├╝chen <mail at nh2.me> wrote:

> > 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^`
>
> Perhaps that is exactly to address the problem in my example:
> If you submit a patch B that depends on A, by default this patch will fail
> to apply against master on the Phabricator side unless you manually set up
> dependencies? I suppose this is why it defaults to submitting the whole
> master-A-B history instead?
>
> > for now manually specifying the dependencies is not terrible.
>
> I have found it pretty terrible:
> Setting up dependencies between commits by hand is time consuming, and you
> can do it wrong, which easily leads to confusion.
>
> If I do 4 refactor commits and on top a new feature that needs them, why
> should I have to manually click together the dependencies between those
> commits? The whole point of git is that it tracks that already for me in
> its DAG.
>
> It gets worse if I have to react to review feedback:
>
> Say Ben tells me in review that I should really squash commits 2 and 3
> because they don't work independent of each other. Easily done with `git
> rebase -i` as suggested, but now I have to go and reflect what I just did
> in version control by manual clicking in an external tool again (and I
> better kick out the right Diff).
>
> Similarly, if want to rename all occurrences of my_var to myVar across my
> 5 commits using rebase -i, I have to manually invoke the right arc
> invocation after each commit.
>
> So I've found it a big pain to maintain a series of dependent commits with
> this workflow.
>
> I can imagine this to be only painless if you have access to the tooling
> you said you have at facebook, that automates these things for you.
>

In fact we did it manually for a long time, the tool support is a recent
development. Tool support can always improve things, but I'll take the
inconvenience of having to specify dependencies manually in exchange for
the other benefits of stacked diffs. You can put the dependencies in the
commit log using "Depends on: D1234", as an alternative to the UI.

'git rebase -i' with 'x arc diff HEAD^ -m rebase' is a nice trick for
rebasing your stack.

Cheers
Simon


> In my ideal world, it should work like this:
>
> * Locally, a series of dependent patches goes into a git branch.
> * Branches that are dependent on each other are based on each other.
> * You have a tool that, if you amend a commit in a branch, can rebase all
> the dependent branches accordingly.
> * You can tell `arc` to submit a whole branch, and it will automatically
> upload all dependent branches and set up the Phabricator dependency
> relationships for you.
> * When you react to review feedback, you change your history locally, and
> run an `arc upload-changes`, that automatically updates all Diffs
> accordingly.
>
> Niklas
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20181006/c0382a19/attachment.html>


More information about the ghc-devs mailing list