Strong -1 personally.
* What is the endgoal? To fully kill phab and move to github pullrequests?
it might be best to discuss *that* first. (did i miss an RFC?)
* Separation of attention - does everyone who cares
now has to also look at pull requests for reviews;
or should they be exempt from general review attention?
* For me personally after using phabricator, github now seems
extremely crude, laggy, limited. To name a few:
* There is no way to see previous version of the patch.
I don't think there is any way to disable force-push for PR's.
While this is only 'slightly' limiting for the reviewer,
this can be more limiting for the author - how do i go back
to previous revision? I can't, i need to maintain a copy
of every branch i pushed manually.
* Impossible to chain reviews - a PR diff can only be made
on top of git master branch. Any non-trivial change consists of
separable PR's. Now either one will only be able to submit
dependent PR after the prereqs are merged, or the diff will be
impossible to read.
* Does not load large diffs by default.
That caught me by surprise several times
when i was searching for something.
* No diffs in mail - *super* inconvenient.
One has to open each pr in browser (or fetch via git etc etc)
* Github is an official US-based commercial organisation.
It *has* to follow U.S. export law. In particular i'm thinking of
GitHub confirms it has blocked developers in Iran, Syria and Crimea – TechCrunch
Project status · Issue #289 · tkashkin/GameHub · GitHub
Does phabricator already have such restrictions, blocks?
If not, wouldn't you say adding such restrictions is not being
more open for contributors?
What happens when, in not so long in the future, the entirety of, say,
china or russian federation is blocked as such?
* Same question can be asked about internet "iron" curtains
certain (*cough*) countries are raising. That also has already happened
before (and *will* happen again), and i was personally affected:
Censorship of GitHub - Wikipedia
I don't recall that happening to phabricator yet.
I fail to see how that is more contributor-friendly.
* Not sure anyone cares, but while using github as main git
repository "mirror" is perfectly fine - git is distributed, only canonical
write-repo would be affected anything bad happen. But that isn't the case
for reviews, issues; as it has been discussed in the "let's migrate bugzilla
to github issues", it is far more involved.
* What about DMCA? Not sure how this is currently handled.
* UI feels laggy. Not much to add here, pretty subjective.
* I'm sure i'm missing a few.
The github does come with it's benefits, sure:
* It is *simpler* to preserve git commit author.
Currently one has to ask the author for the "Author: e@ma.il" line,
and do `git commit --amend --author="<>"`.
* @mention is wide-r-reaching - whole github, not just llvm phabricator
* No more "phabricator disk full" issues
* ???
TLDR: such migration lowers the bar for new, first time,
unestabilished contributors, but i personally feel it *significantly*
raises the bar for the existing contributors, reviewers.
We don't live in perfect world. Aspirational goals are aspirational.
They should be attempted to be reached, but they shouldn't shadow and
overweight, take over the main goal of the LLVM project.
Personally, i don't see that benefits out-/over- weight the drawbacks.
Roman.