Phabricator workflow vs. GitHub

Ben Gamari ben at smart-cactus.org
Sun Oct 7 15:50:36 UTC 2018


Niklas Hamb├╝chen <mail at nh2.me> writes:

..[snip].
>
> 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 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.
>
Yes, I agree that this would be ideal. I have spent quite some time
manually updating related differentials in this way.

On the other hand, I still think this manual process is in many ways
better than the typical GitHub model, where lack of any sort of PR
dependency structure to make reviewing larger changes extremely painful.

Cheers,

- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20181007/0218ce84/attachment.sig>


More information about the ghc-devs mailing list