On 01/30/2020 10:48 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:21 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev
> <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
> On 10/24/2019 07:54 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote:
> > We held a round-table at the llvm dev conference about what other
> pieces of Github infrastructure we may want to use. This thread in particular
> is about switching to github issue tracking. Use of other parts of Github
> functionality was also discussed -- but that should be for other email
> threads.
> >
> > Most of the ideas here were from other people. I /believe/ this
> proposal represents the overall feeling of the folks at the round-table, in
> spirit if not in exact details, but nobody else has reviewed this text, so I
> can't make any specific such claim as to who the "we" represents, other than
> myself. Just assume all the good ideas here were from others, and all the bad
> parts I misremembered or invented.
> >
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> I want to restart this discussion. There seemed to be support for this,
> but we got held up trying to decide on the appropriate set of tags to
> use to classify issues.
>
> I propose that we move forward with this proposal and disable creation of
> new bugs in bugzilla on Feb 11, and require all new bugs be filed via
> GitHub
> issues from that date forward.
>
> I think that for choosing the tags to use, we should just take requests
> from the community over the next week and add whatever is asked for. The
> main
> purpose of adding tags is so we can setup cc lists for bugs, so I think
> this
> is a good way to ensure that we have tags people care about. We can
> always
> add more tags later if necessary.
>
>
> Do we have a way for individuals to get individually automatically subscribed
> on all the bugs created for a given tag?
> Mailing-lists seem fairly rigid in terms of granularity with respect to tags.
>
When I said cc lists, I really meant auto-subscribe lists, I didn't mean
that we would start sending issue emails to mailing lists.
From what I can tell, there are a couple different ways to auto-subscribe
people using github actions. I think the most simple would be to use
the assignee field, but I think it's also possible by @ mentioning people
directly in a comment or @ mentioning teams.
I was planning to experiment more with this over the next few days.
-Tom
> --
> Mehdi
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What does everyone think about this?
>
> -Tom
>
>
> > Background
> > ----
> > Our bugzilla installation is...not great. It's been not-great for a
> long time now.
> >
> > Last year, I argued against switching to github issues. I was somewhat
> optimistic that it was possible to improve our bugzilla in some incremental
> ways...but we haven't. Additionally, the upstream bugzilla project was
> supposed to make a new release of bugzilla ("harmony"), based on
> bugzilla.mozilla.org <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org>
> <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org>'s fork, which is much nicer. I thought we would
> be able to upgrade to that. But there has been no such release, and not much
> apparent progress towards such. I can't say with any confidence that there
> will ever be. I no longer believe it really makes sense to continue using
> bugzilla.
> >
> > This year, we again discussed switching. This time, nobody really spoke
> up in opposition. So, this time, instead of debating /whether/ we should
> switch, we discussed /how/ we should switch. And came up with a plan to
> switch quickly.
> >
> > GitHub issues may not be perfect, but I see other similarly-large
> projects using it quite successfully (e.g. rust-lang/rust) -- so I believe it
> should be good for us, as well. Importantly, Github Issues is significantly
> less user-hostile than our bugzilla is, for new contributors and downstream
> developers who just want to tell us about bugs!
> >
> >
> > Proposal
> > ----
> > We propose to enable Github issues for the llvm-project repository in
> approximately two weeks from now, and instruct everyone to start filing new
> issues there, rather than in bugzilla.
> >
> > Some things we'd like to get in place before turning on Github's Issue
> tracker:
> > 1. Updated documentation.
> > 2. An initial set of issue tags we'd like to use for
> triaging/categorizing issues.
> > 3. Maybe setup an initial issue template. Or maybe multiple templates.
> Or maybe not.
> >
> > But more important are the things we do /not/ want to make
> prerequisites for turning on Github issues:
> >
> > We do /not/ yet plan to turn off Bugzilla, and do /not/ plan to migrate
> the existing issues to GitHub as a prerequisite for switching. We will thus
> expect that people continue using bugzilla for commenting on the existing
> bugs -- for the moment.
> >
> > We do /not/ want to build supplementary notification systems to make
> github issues send additional emails that it is unable to send itself. We
> will only support what GitHub supports. That means:
> > - You can subscribe to notification emails for activity in the entire
> llvm-project repository.
> > - You can subscribe to notification emails on an individual issue.
> > - Someone else can CC you on an individual issue to get your attention,
> and you will get notifications from that (unless you opt-out).
> > - No emails will be sent to llvm-b...@llvm.org
> <mailto:llvm-b...@llvm.org> <mailto:llvm-b...@llvm.org
> <mailto:llvm-b...@llvm.org>> for github issues.
> > - There is no builtin way for users to subscribe to emails for bugs
> that have a given label (for example, all "clang" issues, or all x86 issues).
> >
> > Further steps
> > ----
> > After we migrate, there's still things we want to do:
> >
> > 1. Discuss and setup new and better procedures around bug triage and
> prioritization.
> >
> > What we have been doing up until now has not been great in any case.
> Switching bug-trackers is a great opportunity to try to do something better.
> E.g., like what the rust project has done
> (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#issue-triage,
> https://forge.rust-lang.org/release/triage-procedure.html#issue-triage).
> >
> > 2. Bug migration
> >
> > /After/ the initial switchover, we do want to investigate two
> possibilities for migrating issues and turning off the bugzilla server. I
> expect which one is chosen will come down mostly to feasibility of
> implementation.
> >
> > Possibility 1: Migrate /all/ the existing bugs into a secondary
> "llvm-bugs-archive" github repository, and then turn off bugzilla. Github
> offers the ability to move bugs from one repository to another, and so we can
> use this to move bugs that are still relevant afterwards (potentially this
> could be done automatically upon any activity). Then, shut down bugzilla, and
> leave behind only a redirect script.
> >
> > Possibility 2: Create the ability to import an individual bug from
> Bugzilla into the llvm-project repository by pressing a "migrate this bug to
> github" button. Then, leave bugzilla running only as a static snapshot -- as
> static as possible while leaving the "migrate this bug to github" button
> operational.
> >
> > In both cases, we'd want to support a redirect script to take you from
> the old bug ids to the migrated bug page. In both cases, we would /preserve/
> the entire archive of existing bugs, but would not import the entire set into
> the "llvm-project" github repository.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
