This discussion is bound to LLVM's current process: phabricator reviews and commit-but-revert-if-it-breaks. Several folks on the thread suggest that it can be

This discussion is bound to LLVM's current process: phabricator reviews and commit-but-revert-if-it-breaks. Several folks on the thread suggest that it can be decided independently but IMHO it should not be. Want to leverage GH? Then let's really leverage it! Use pull request reviews. Use a sane subset of existing buildbot configurations in webhook-triggered CI to maximize coverage for some "reasonable" build+test duration, optimistically batch commits for test. Pay for CI service from Circle/Azure/Travis/whoever, or use existing LLVM infrastructure to execute CI. Some of these CI services are downright simple to enable and start using. Yes, unfortunately, this will probably involve duplicate configurations between CI and buildbots. Yes, unfortunately, commits will still escape the limited CI tests and cause buildbot regressions. It's still a net win IMO. After having contributed to projects like Rust and others that use an integrated CI, phabricator & arcanist feels too disconnected to me. Whenever I upstream a change to llvm I'm never confident that it's going to work and it feels so dissimilar from a 'normal' workflow.