Phabricator differential is not good - WAS - Re: Phabricator: All repositories registered - upcoming workflow changes

[Albert Astals Cid]

El dissabte, 4 de febrer de 2017, a les 12:44:54 CET, Ben Cooksley va 
escriure:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Albert Astals Cid <aacid at kde.org> wrote:
> > El divendres, 3 de febrer de 2017, a les 21:06:08 CET, Ben Cooksley va
> > 
> > escriure:
> >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Albert Astals Cid <aacid at kde.org> wrote:
> >> > El diumenge, 29 de gener de 2017, a les 8:32:21 CET, Ben Cooksley va
> > 
> > escriure:
> >> >> Hi everyone,
> >> >> 
> >> >> We've just completed the registration of all mainline repositories
> >> >> (not including Websites or Sysadmin namespaced ones) on Phabricator.
> >> >> Thanks go to Luigi Toscano for providing significant assistance with
> >> >> this process.
> >> >> 
> >> >> From this point forward, communities should be moving away from
> >> >> Reviewboard to Phabricator for conducting code review.
> >> > 
> >> > I just created first patch with the phabricator web interface.
> >> > 
> >> > Found one minor and one major problem.
> >> > 
> >> > Minor problem:
> >> >  * You can't update the diff before creating a "Revision", so if you
> >> >  realize
> >> > 
> >> > your diff was wrong, back luck, you either leave the diff floating in
> >> > the
> >> > limbo or you create the Revision and the update the diff, showing the
> >> > world
> >> > your mistake for no reason
> >> > https://phabricator.kde.org/D4422?vs=10881&id=10882
> >> 
> >> Interesting. It might be worth asking upstream about that.
> >> 
> >> > Major problem:
> >> >  * It doesn't show context
> >> > 
> >> > https://phabricator.kde.org/D4422
> >> > 
> >> > "Context not available." is terrible, how is one supposed to review
> >> > without
> >> > being able to read the rest of the code?
> >> > 
> >> > This is a deal breaker for me.
> >> 
> >> Please see https://secure.phabricator.com/T5029
> > 
> > As said on IRC, the fact that this has been open for almost 3 years is
> > more a concern than a relief.
> 
> I've inquired with upstream, and they've indicated that at the moment
> T5029 isn't on their roadmap for implementation (although T5000 and
> T182 are).
> 
> Their target audience is primarily corporate development workflows,
> for which requiring use of Arcanist isn't an issue.
> 
> >> This only occurs when patches are uploaded from the web interface and
> >> the patch in question has minimal context.
> >> At this time Phabricator is not able to automatically resolve context
> >> using markers in the patch (there are certain complexities involved
> >> for some SCMs, particularly for SVN - which Phabricator supports)
> >> 
> >> The fix for this is to either:
> >> a) Use Arcanist, the recommended tool for working with Phabricator
> >> (this is no different to rb-tools for Reviewboard)
> > 
> > This is not ok, the web interface for reviewboard was as good as rb-tools
> > (i guess tbh i never used them) and "forcing" the use of a weird tool
> > noone has heard of is not a good way to attract new contributors
> 
> New contributors who aren't willing to install Arcanist can use diff
> -U99 I would imagine?

Yes, If there's an easy way for them to know they should (which afaics is not 
right now).

Cheers,
  Albert

> 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> >   Albert
> 
> Regards,
> Ben