On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Mark Côté <mc...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 12:43:58 UTC-5, Steve Fink wrote: > > On 11/29/2017 08:35 AM, Mark Côté wrote: > > > I posted an update on Phabricator and Lando to my blog a couple weeks > ago, but I figured I should share it here too: > https://mrcote.info/blog/2017/11/17/phabricator-and-lando-november-update/ > > > > > > There are two important points: > > > > > > 1. Our Phabricator instance has been up and running for a few months > now. Our team has been using it regularly, as has the NSS team and some > Firefox devs. We were hesitant to advertise this too widely in order not > to create any confusion around the Quantum release, but now that that has > settled down I am told it should be fine for anyone to start using it. The > instance is at https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/ and there are > docs at https://moz-conduit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/phabricator-user.html. > We will have some hands-on training in Austin as well. > > > > Where should we file bugs, and what sorts of bugs would be useful right > now? > > > > I see in bugzilla Conduit :: Phabricator (Upstream) and Conduit :: > > Phabricator Extensions. I don't know what Conduit is. I checked Conduit > > :: General, but it just says "General Conduit bugs." What terminology do > > we need to know in order to be able to file bugs and find the right > > documentation? > > > > So for example, "recent commits" on the mozilla-central repo appears to > > be backwards. It only shows stuff from 2007, and the related pages > > (History, Graph) are the same. The Graph page, in particular, seems to > > only allow advancing a page at a time, so there's no way you'd ever get > > to the tip. But this is totally noncritical functionality right now, so > > perhaps it would just add friction to file a bunch of obvious bugs? > > "Conduit" is the name of the whole system consisting of all our services > related to code review and landing (and a few other things). The "Getting > in Touch" section of our docs has a breakdown of components: > http://moz-conduit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/phabricator-user.html#getting- > in-touch > > Huh yeah I didn't notice that about the history & graphs. That is weird. > To be honest, Diffusion is not the best source-code viewer for a repo the > size of mozilla-central. I would still default to using hg.mozilla.org, > despite it not having as fancy an interface. But feel free to file those > bugs as I am curious why the behaviour is the way it is. Those would > belong in Conduit :: Phabricator (Upstream), as we do not intend to heavily > customize our instance and hence would like to work with upstream on these > kinds of issues. > My understanding is that another user of Phabricator with a Very Large Repository does not use the Phabricator repository viewer because of scaling and usability issues. My info may be a bit out of date though. But I'm inclined to say we should steer people away from the Phabricator UI (for better or worse). Also, Mercurial has steadily been getting a slew of updates to the HTML interface. There's a ton coming in the not-yet-released 4.5 release. But we're still running 4.2 on hg.mozilla.org. You can run `hg serve` to run a local server, which will get you the modern goodies (and it will be fast since it avoids network round trips). _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
