Web lists-archives.com

Re: Changes to Phabricator review subscriptions




On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Timothée Giet <animtim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Le 09/05/2018 à 12:11, Ben Cooksley a écrit :
>>
>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:25 PM, Timothée Giet <animtim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 09/05/2018 à 10:33, Boudewijn Rempt a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 10:08:28 AM CEST you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> To improve the user experience around email and in-application
>>>>> notifications from Phabricator, sysadmin have made some changes to the
>>>>> configuration of our Herald rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> Going forward, instead of subscribing projects to reviews, we will
>>>>> only be subscribing mailing lists now.
>>>>
>>>> So, should we now get all phabricator mail at, say, kimageshop@xxxxxxx,
>>>> or
>>>> should we create a second mailing list, say krita-phab@xxxxxxx? I do
>>>> want
>>>> to
>>>> receive mail for everything krita-related that happens on phabricator!
>>>>
>>>>> For those reviews which have
>>>>> already been created, they will be updated to reflect the new practice
>>>>> the next time they are changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> This means that individual project members will no longer receive
>>>>> notifications and emails for every single review or task change that
>>>>> affects their project. Instead, they will only receive notifications
>>>>> and emails for reviews they have been individually subscribed to.
>>>>
>>>> :-(
>>>>
>>>>> To help this change take full effect, it would be appreciated if
>>>>> people refrain from adding Projects as reviewers, as that will have
>>>>> the effect of subscribing the Project to the review as well
>>>>
>>>> But what if that's what a project really wants?
>>>
>>>
>>> That is also exactly what we use to do in GCompris... it's the best
>>> solution
>>> for us to easily connect the diff to the relevant group of people.
>>> Subscribing our current mailing list is surely not what we want.
>>
>> If you could elaborate on your use case here that would be appreciated.
>> Traditionally most development has taken place via mailing lists, so
>> it's interesting to see people who don't follow that model.
>>
>> (To date all Herald rule setup requests have been for mailing lists)
>>
>> I note that GCompris also doesn't appear to have any rules setup,
>> which is possibly why this hasn't come up before.
>>
>
> Thanks a lot Ben for the clarification :)
> So it seems we are unaffected by the change and can continue to work like we
> do.
> To elaborate as you asked for it, we try to use phabricator as much as
> possible for task management and review request.
> For review requests we ask people to add GCompris or one of the appropriate
> subprojects (like GCompris: Improvements) as Group-reviewer.
> This way all people subscribed to this project/sub-project gets a mail
> notification, but most importantly has it listed in his
> https://phabricator.kde.org/differential/

Thanks for that.
You should probably ask for a Herald rule to be setup as it can
automate parts of this.

>
> See http://gcompris.net/wiki/Contribution_process , especially "Asking for a
> Review Request"
>
> It seems that Krita is doing the same, since I also see lot of diffs with
> Krita reviewer in my list and notifications (which I also like to have ;) )
>
> Only "issue" for me is I have some mail duplicates from kde-edu list. It
> would be great to find a way to avoid them, but if not possible I can live
> with that.

Everyone will continue to receive duplicates where they are subscribed
to a mailing list which receives review mail and have been subscribed
(either by being the named reviewer or explicitly subscribed) for a
repository's reviews. This cannot be avoided i'm afraid (Phabricator
has no idea who is subscribed to a given list).

>
> Our devel mailing list is now mostly used for occasional wider dev
> communication, and for occasional contributors.
>
> Cheers,
> Timothée

Regards,
Ben