Hacker News Reader

Comment by indygreg2 | Hacker News Reader

They aim for a completely linear history. They may even have a policy of not allowing merge commits. It is described in various places on the internet. I like https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabflavor/article/recom... because it and its sister articles on code review and revision control are terrific reads.

View on HN

Dear everyone: you should be using Phabricator. It is Facebook's collected wisdom about software development expressed in software. It has improved my life substantially. The code review is better than Github's, and their linear, squashed commit philosophy has worked out much better than the way I used to do things.

Oh yeah, it's great when one person can break the build and stop all active development. It scales so well. Oh I know, to prevent any issues, let's protect ourselves with feature toggles. Oh and let's build a set of database driven rules to manage those toggles. Oh what about dependencies? Let's build a manager to manage the DAG of feature toggle dependencies.

Need I go on? :-) You've replaced a relatively simple system of merge requests with some pseudo in-code versioning system controlled through boolean global variables.

I'll take feature branches any day of the week over that mess. The github model is far superior IMO.

My team uses Phabricator without any feature toggles in our code. You land code onto master when it's ready to ship. Until then, you have features developed and reviewed on separate branches. I don't get how that's more or less fragile than merges.

I was addressing the idea of committing directly to master, protecting your code with feature toggles so it doesn't break things. Maybe I misunderstood the OP.

I think feature toggles can be extremely useful, but still develop in a branch and merge after review/qa.

We're using Phabricator at my company, and I'm getting to the point of encouraging people to use it and start seeing the benefits. I work on infrastructure, so when people come to me with issues, I find out what problem they're having and then get them to submit a ticket to me. I've also started creating tickets for issues and assigning them to other people to get them to take a look at it, and people seem pretty receptive.

It hasn't become part of everyone's workflow yet, but it's pretty useful.

That might be a silly question but it's not useful for just an individual in a team, correct? We use GitHub at work, but I wouldn't be able to try Phabricator on my own, right?

Mostly correct. You can use the code review tools without needing your repository set up in Phabricator or anyone else with Phabricator accounts. You could comment on a diff and point your coworker to it, but it's unlikely to feel better than Github pull requests in that scenario.

It looks pretty great. How does it compare to Atlassian products (if you have used any)?

Mixed bag. The code review part is much better than stash and significantly better than crucible. Namely, diff of diffs makes reviewing changes based on comments infinitely easier (especially on large reviews). We installed phabricator just for the code review piece initially. Repo browsing is about on par with stash, but it doesn't seem to experience the horrific slow downs that our stash server does. We don't use the tasks because a number of non engineering roles also use JIRA and the tasks functions in phabricator don't have nearly the depth of security and workflow options we need.

I've used JIRA, and I slightly prefer Phabricator's tasks. They're mostly the same.

Seems like you lose most of the value of git if you can't do merges.

You can still merge from master (or whatever your main development branch is) into your feature branches. You just never merge into your main branch. You squash the commits and rebase. The history ends up looking much better, and `git blame` becomes much more useful.

Linear codebase history? Why even use Git then... that's SVN stuff... we use Git now-a-days for a reason...

Last I knew, the FB mainline codebase was in fact still in SVN with git-svn dcommit (possibly hidden under arc) being how things land in "master" (and the revisions being merged quasi-manually to a release branch immediately before HH compile)

FB doesn't need to branch ... Gatekeeper (their A/B, feature flag system) really takes care of that concern logically

There's a big difference between a linear history produced by actual linear development and one produced by `git rebase -i`. They both have the advantage of being easier to understand later, however.

That's not true dude. If you're following actual linear development you're likely to see a lot of 'poke build' and 'change css' and stuff like that. Git rebase -i gives you a change to rename your commit and organize it in a readable way.

So git rebase -i will be more readable, while actual linear history is always gibberish.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com