On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 1:04 PM Jordan Rupprecht <rupprecht at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:29 AM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:07 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> +Mehdi AMINI who's taking some (shared?) ownership of Phabricator these days. >>> >>> Mehdi - was Phab updated recently (such that we might've picked up new semantics)? >> >> >> No: I upgraded the hardware and the OS, but not Phab itself yet. >> >> I have a test instance running with an upgraded Phab though, it may have been sending duplicate emails in the last day or two when I didn't notice I had the email daemon running. >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 4:25 AM Jay Foad via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Has anyone else noticed Phabricator sending emails saying: >>>> This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state >>>> "Needs Review". >>>> when the review clearly has been accepted by someone? >>>> >>>> Some recent examples: >>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D83952 >> >> >> Seems like this one closed as expected without the message? http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20200720/808734.html >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D80116 >> >> >> Same here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20200720/808778.html >> >> Can you forward me the email you received for these revisions? >> >> >>> >>> >>> Hard for me to tell what happened here. I wonder if it's related to making changes after review/before committing. While that's common in LLVM, I could imagine a review tool (especially if we picked up a newer version - as I don't think it's always had this behavior) might get fussy about that - perhaps it'd be configurable, so it'd say "this was committed with extra changes" but not "This was committed without review". >>> >>> Do you have any examples that didn't have post-approval-pre-commit changes that still got this annotation about being committed without review? >>> >>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D81267 >>> >>> >>> Last one seems more clear - one of the reviewers (rupprecht) still had the review marked "requires changes", so it was committed without closure on that >> >> >> Indeed this one shows the message: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20200713/807554.html > > dmgreen accepted it after I requested changes. Shouldn't that override my earlier "requires changes" request? It seems like a bad SPOF of failure to require *my* LGTM. > > FWIW, the reland of the patch is good with me because it includes a variant of the crash repro I provided. I just didn't LGTM it -- I'm not familiar with the patch at all beyond that it caused a crash -- which is why I assumed someone else would be able to approve and take it out of the "requires changes" state (e.g. make sure it fixes the crash in the right way). I could go either way there - sometimes if multiple people have provided feedback/requested changes, we do try to wait to check that those who requested them sign off that they've been addressed, otherwise some reviewers can (unintentionally or otherwise) undercut others. - Dave >> >> >> -- >> Mehdi >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4