[PATCH] phabricator: drop support for the deprecated `phabricator.token` config

[Gregory Szorc]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On May 11, 2018, at 9:31 PM, Matt Harbison <mharbison72 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > BTW, are there any plans to move this into the bundled extensions?
>
> Broadly, yes. The big blocker is having a testing story, because right now
> the “best” options I’ve heard are:
>
> 1) use a docker container to spin up an entire phabricator for testing
> 2) some kind replay mechanism on http traffic so we can verify the right
> requests are still being made
>
> I think we’re all very in favor of (2), but haven’t had the time.
>
> > I dabbled with Reviewboard this week, but I like how this can download a
> series, remember what review a commit is associated with, etc.  Bundling it
> would be nice for juggling different versions of Mercurial.  But Augie's
> comment on the bug tracker[1] made me think that maybe it's too hard to
> support properly.
>
> I haven’t used reviewboard in a while, but Mozilla is moving from RB to
> Phab, which was enough to convince me to not go back and look at RB again.
>

Without saying that Mozilla's decision was wrong or misguided, speaking as
a Mozillian, I feel that modern versions of Reviewboard (which has native
support for a series of commits) are fine. Both Reviewboard and Phabricator
have their own set of warts. Pick your poison. Mozilla's decision had more
to do with special requirements and exigent circumstances than Reviewboard
versus Phabricator per se. It's complicated. I wouldn't read too much into
Mozilla's decision to switch from Reviewboard to Phabricator.

That being said, I *really* like Phabricator's model of grouping commits
into a series. Having a loose coupling makes it easier to make piecemeal
progress towards landing commits. Contrast with other review tools which
put an emphasis on atomically landing a group of commits only once they are
all ready. There are various benefits to landing commits as soon as they
are ready (avoiding bit rot, getting feedback from other users sooner,
people feel better when making progress, etc). Phabricator's very loose
grouping of commits allows it to support incremental landing workflows
better than other code review tools. Unfortunately, some VCS tools inhibit
users from realizing these benefits (e.g. difficulty rebasing a partially
landed "branch"). Mercurial with obsolescence markers works incredibly well
for this workflow.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20180512/5a6eee65/attachment.html>