qchris wrote on 2014-04-26 21:33:41 (UTC)

First, we're told to not use git, as arc is the tool to do things.
When arc stumbles across simple tasks, we're told to use git again.

So our users need to learn and understand arc + git :-(

mattflaschen wrote on 2014-04-29 01:11:01 (UTC)

First, we're told to not use git, as arc is the tool to do things.

Who said not to use git at all? It obviously has to be used for some things. As far as I can tell, arc is intended to handle the most common network operations (land, patch, amend, etc.), and none of the local ones (e.g log), with maybe some rare exceptions like arc feature foo, which looks like an optional way to start a local branch.

So our users need to learn and understand arc + git :-(

I use feature branches anyway with Gerrit. That's the only way you automatically get a topic in the top left.

Beyond that, all abstractions are leaky to some degree. However, they can certainly be improved over time.

mattflaschen wrote on 2014-04-29 01:12:05 (UTC)

Forcing people to only using parts of git's features is bad :-(

Also, Gerrit definitely imposes conventions on git work too (e.g. only reviewing one commit at a time).

milimetric wrote on 2014-04-29 15:57:24 (UTC)

Forcing people to only using parts of git's features is bad :-(

Gerrit also basically disintegrates into a hot mess whenever it has to deal with merge commits.

I think we should state our points more as "this specific thing needs to be dealt with if we migrate to Phabricator" rather than general comments like the above. General statements will just start holy wars :)

Rush wrote on 2014-04-29 17:03:52 (UTC)

Not really adding much here, other than to say I've never used arc branch foo. I usually only bring arc into the fold when I need to get something into phabricator, that works well for me. I'm not sure what the overall perception of arc is, but my view is it's just glue between git and phabricator. It doesn't exclude needing to understand git, arc for me is no replacement. I'm not sure if that is anyones intention, I don't believe it is. Doing basic git things with arc I think is just a nicety, so there is always a need to understand git to use arc for code review. I actually don't view that as a positive or negative, just normal?

It would be more confusing to me to think of arc as some kind of git hiding proprietary interface. It doesn't preclude using git anymore than hub does for github I guess.

qchris wrote on 2014-05-01 14:18:38 (UTC)

@mattflaschen

First, we're told to not use git, as arc is the tool to do things.

Who said not to use git at all? It obviously has to be used for some things. As far as I can tell, arc is intended to handle the most common network operations (land, patch, amend, etc.)

So ... as you say “arc is intended to handle the most common network operations (land, [...]” ... this task is about arc land not working and that one has to fall-back to using git :-)

[...] That's the only way you automatically get a topic in the top left.

?
No. Push to refs/for/master/whateverTopicYouWant

If you don't use Arcanist, can u bypass the code-review by simply pushing the code?

Maybe this is a question to be asked in Phabricator upstream? In the context of Wikimedia, bypassing code review is not an option.

Ok, sorry. Maybe I was a bit confused after reading the arc amend / git push comment, for a sec I thought it is possible to bypass arc by simply git pushing to a phabricator archive without using arc diff. I remember the "Usage Exception: You can not land a branch onto itself -"... error message, my solution was arc feature "featurename" to bypass this little troublemaker *g

@Xitec75: only project owners (people with +2 in gerrit) can bypass review. This is the case in gerrit as well. It's pretty much necessary for someone to be able to push.

I don't think this is a blocker but should inform our documentation updates.

In T134#1306228, @greg wrote:

I don't think this is a blocker but should inform our documentation updates.

Per this, removing Gerrit-Migration project.