4 ms·
Amen. Common vanilla-git approaches/workflows like feature-branches/sprint branches/hotfix branches are a massive pain due the often undocumented pedantry of Ar
by flak48 8y ago
Amen. Common vanilla-git approaches/workflows like feature-branches/sprint branches/hotfix branches are a massive pain due the often undocumented pedantry of Arcanist/Phabricator.
For example, if you merge a reviewed commit into two different branches and then god forbid you try to merge those two branches, Arcanist will fail with a cryptic message - and you'll only realize that this is arbitrarily/buggy-ly forbidden only when you try this workflow several times...
Vanilla-git or even a Bitbucket/GitHub/GitLab style pull-request style workflow gives you so much flexibility that Arcanist just takes away from you, and the only way to learn these quirks is the hard way....
- sjburt 8y agoPhabricator has a very particular workflows. If you use that workflow, it is really fast to use; you can do almost everything from the command line except the actual code review/approval. And it is pretty good about encouraging that your repo is kept clean, decluttered, and consistent. Whereas gitlab/github etc are much more flexible, but also slower to use and more demanding that your individual developers adhere to your standards. I think Phab is best for projects of 3-5 to 50 (basically until your project is dealing with multiple commits per hour and no single repo is going to be painless), especially when you have new team members and you'd rather let the the tools enforce the workflow as opposed to policing them yourselves. However, if you don't like that workflow, you're never going to be happy with Phab. Finally, Phab has some really nice features that I haven't seen elsewhere, like posting lint errors inline in the merge request.
- rokob 8y agoI used Phabricator at Facebook with a few more than 50 people and it worked pretty well.