I think gerrit seems to use this same kind of workflow, but with a git frontend (but just for transmitting the patches). More convenient than arcanist IMO.
Yeah me too. I used Phabricator extensively and in practice it is basically the same as Gitlab and GitHub and everyone else. You just say `arc diff` instead of `git push`.
Phabricator was pretty nice overall I would say. The bug tracker in particular was good. I have to use Jira now and it's night and day.
The big flaw was there was essentially no CI support. That and the fact it was written in PHP, which you'd think wouldn't matter, but I did end up being forced to learn some PHP to fix Phabricator bugs and write custom linters.
Now we're using Gitlab which is also decent except it's written in Ruby which if anything is worse than PHP! Absolutely unreadable code base. I can't fix anything. (Except in gitlab-runner which is written in Go - I've contributed several fixes & features there.)
"just" - I bounced off Phabricator because I couldn't use native git tooling, and what mapped to where wasn't clear to me. The pure git approach of git-pr is the exact opposite of that. Sure, someone is going to write just-too-useful-to-skip-wrappers around that later, but you always know what's going on under the hood.
Hehe. I worked at an online lending website around 2013 with a group of particle physicists hired to build risk prediction models. They used ROOT for the modeling and build some interface through ruby... fromnthe software engineering POV it was an abomination. But the statistics POV was pretty neat.
This was way before the Python ecosystem gained traction. And R ML packages were also just starting.
This + show me tools you are using. Like show me how you use copilot or even what you would search on stackoverflow for.
A surprising number of candidates would fail even the "I can use my own IDE" part of this exercise. It is still the same thing after all - show me what you have in your toolbox and how well you can use those tools.
