Hi Christian,
On Tue, 4 May 2021, Christian Kühnel wrote:
Having your own, custom Herald rules is always superior to general rules for
a project. They are naturally targeted towards your use cases. However I
wanted to offer a proper email integration for all users without having to
write their
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 1:24 PM Krzysztof Parzyszek via cfe-dev
wrote:
>
> Statement:
>
> Our current code review policy states[1]:
>
> “Code reviews are conducted, in order of preference, on our web-based
> code-review tool (see Code Reviews with Phabricator), by email on the
> relevant project’
I'm opposed to separating the pre- and post-commit reviews. One of the goals
of this proposal is to have the entire review history in one place, and using a
combination of email and Phabricator would prevent that. If I want to find out
why a commit has been reverted, I have to search the post-
I’m not hearing any particular objection to moving to Phabricator-only for
reviews. The trend has been in that direction for years anyway. The barriers
for one-time contributors are (a) registration, and (b) unfamiliarity with a
user-hostile web UI. Regarding registration, it’s either subscri
You're right that doing post-commit reviews on Phabricator is not
seamless---the rG link is not included anywhere. Hopefully that could be fixed
with some Phabricator configuration tweaks, like sending the commit email to
the -commits list.
I'm not sure if there is a general fix for the spam i
> You're right that doing post-commit reviews on Phabricator is not
> seamless---the rG link is not included anywhere. Hopefully that could be
> fixed with some Phabricator configuration tweaks, like sending the commit
> email to the -commits list.
The commit email has a URL: link, e.g. this rece
On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:56 AM wrote:
>
> > You're right that doing post-commit reviews on Phabricator is not
> > seamless---the rG link is not included anywhere. Hopefully that could be
> > fixed with some Phabricator configuration tweaks, like sending the commit
> > email to the -commits list.
The github URL is not the "rG" one being referred to here. If you wanted to
do a post-commit review on the commit, you'd go to
https://reviews.llvm.org/rGb04148f77713c92ee57b33b7b858ad18ce8d78e3, which
is a part of Phabricator. You can comment on this page, much in the same
way as you would a D
> > The commit email has a URL: link, e.g. this recent one (which has no
> > Dn review):
> >
> > URL:
> > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b04148f77713c92ee57b33b7b858ad18ce8d78e3
> >
> > Does that take you to a different place than the rG link would?
> > Seems like they ought to go
As long as the solution matches "EditLine *" (C struct type from edit line
library) to back to the C++ instance of "Editline" (lower case ell in "line"
from LLDB). It should be easy to do with a template.
I am fine with any new solution that makes it easier to add new commands. I
would rather h
10 matches
Mail list logo
