On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:09 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 2/11/18 3:57 PM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > >> Arc wants to use something like: >> > > So from my point of view, having the bug# easily linked from various > places where the short summary is all that's shown (pushlogs especially) is > pretty useful. It saves loading a bunch of extra things when trying to go > from regression-range pushlogs to the relevant bugs.... It's generally pretty easy to modify tooling to find linked bugs. We have a shared Python module for parsing commit messages into useful metadata and that's used by various tools for extracting bugs, reviewers, so they can be rendered in various places ( https://hg.mozilla.org/hgcustom/version-control-tools/file/3743b6c62d05/pylib/mozautomation/mozautomation/commitparser.py). And updating templating on hg.mozilla.org to render useful fields more prominently is generally pretty turnkey. Please file bugs in the hg.mozilla.org component if you want the display of things tweaked! More to the point of the original question, there are several reasons why we don't want to use Arcanist (`arc`) for Firefox development (and probably more broadly at Mozilla). The initial comment in bug 1366401 records a lot of them. The plan of record is to author a minimal client for submitting reviews via Phabricator's HTTP API and to plumb that up to `mach` as needed. This work isn't part of the Phabricator MVP, which is why the Phabricator team hasn't worked on it. If you use Mercurial, there is an alternative to Arcanist available today! You can combine Mercurial's "phabricator" extension with a minimal wrapper that Tom Prince wrote so it recognizes Mozilla's bug numbers and reviewer annotations. Instructions are at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1366401#c4. This will likely serve as the base for the eventual solution. It is probably less effort to configure this than to install Arcanist. It is unsupported, but I think it is better than using Arcanist. Git users will likely have to wait until after the Phabricator MVP is launched before there is staffing to work on a client. We kind of lucked out that Mercurial had something that was almost drop-in ready for us to consume and that is why there is a Mercurial alternative (i.e. this isn't about prioritizing Mercurial over Git). While I'm not working on either client implementation and am not part of the Phabricator team, if someone wants to formalize the Mercurial or Git clients in version-control-tools before the Phabricator team has time to work on them, I'd be happy to review code or provide technical assistance. Track things against bug 1366401 if you do any work. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
