I know you worked hard to make sure that updating a revision doesn’t send email unless there is text typed into one of the boxes Manuel, but I think we should by default put some text into a box (and send the email unless the user deletes that text) when accepting a revision. Otherwise, the final LGTM can accidentally happen on Phab and not reach the mailing list (D4178 for example).
Thoughts?
I had hoped we can educate people using phab that only text they write gets
sent to the list, and that they should only send things to the list, and
not manage the state in phab. I think wanting to make it possible to make
the state in phab more in line with what's visible on the list would be
great, but I have problems finding the spare cycles currently (given that I
spend most of my phab time cycles with maintenance due to DMARC / other
email problems).
Is there any reason not to have accepts always send an email?
- Michael Spencer
If it's possible to make "accept" send an email with the text "LGTM",
that would design away another source of discontinuity between the
list and Phab.
I know you worked hard to make sure that updating a revision doesn't send email unless there is text typed into one of the boxes Manuel, but I think we should by default put some text into a box (and send the email unless the user deletes that text) when accepting a revision. Otherwise, the final LGTM can accidentally happen on Phab and not reach the mailing list (D4178 for example).
Thoughts?
I had hoped we can educate people using phab that only text they write gets sent to the list, and that they should only send things to the list, and not manage the state in phab.
Is there a way of disabling the state management interface in phab
entirely?
Then the only way for people to "accept" something is by typing text
to that effect.
Is there a Phab developer mailing list which this discussion could be moved to or cc'd? Maybe others on that list would like to join in or it would be more relevant there?
Is there a Phab developer mailing list which this discussion could be
moved to or cc'd? Maybe others on that list would like to join in or it
would be more relevant there?
There's an IRC channel and phab's site / bug tracker (phabricator.com).
The problem in this specific case is that it's only our phab instance that
behaves that way (default phab spams emails on everything a user does).
I'll work on the LGTM issue.
Thanks!
/Manuel
If you don't "Accept" the patch, you can't close the issue. So, either
we send an email when people accept the patch (with LGTM or not,
doesn't matter), or we remove the restriction on closing pending
reviews.
cheers,
--renato
> Then the only way for people to "accept" something is by typing text
> to that effect.If you don't "Accept" the patch, you can't close the issue. So, either
we send an email when people accept the patch (with LGTM or not,
doesn't matter), or we remove the restriction on closing pending
reviews.
I'm not sure why those are related - you can simply self-accept a revision
(which probably shouldn't send an LG). This is because many people don't
use phab, and so the LG only comes via the mailing list.
I think if we're going to have any control flow in phab, we should
have it minimally functional. That was just an example of it being
non-functional (ie. performing an extra useless step in order to
complete another).
So, either we keep the flow control as text (list or phab, doesn't
matter), and stop any checking of state change in phab, or we let phab
help, and make it either send an email of acceptance or add LGTM
whenever the user choose "Accept" in the drop down.
Having a non-functional flow control that burdens the users is another
reason for people not to use it.
cheers,
--renato
> I'm not sure why those are related - you can simply self-accept a
revision
> (which probably shouldn't send an LG). This is because many people don't
use
> phab, and so the LG only comes via the mailing list.I think if we're going to have any control flow in phab, we should
have it minimally functional. That was just an example of it being
non-functional (ie. performing an extra useless step in order to
complete another).So, either we keep the flow control as text (list or phab, doesn't
matter), and stop any checking of state change in phab, or we let phab
help, and make it either send an email of acceptance or add LGTM
whenever the user choose "Accept" in the drop down.Having a non-functional flow control that burdens the users is another
reason for people not to use it.
I agree that the workflow is not optimal yet, and I'm going to work on
making it better.
Thanks! 
--renato