In a previous discussion, one other suggestion had been to migrate all the bugzilla bugs to a separate initially-private "bug archive" repository in github. This has a few benefits: 1. If the migration is messed up, the repo can be deleted, and the process run again, until we get a result we like. 2. The numbering can be fully-controlled. Once the bugs are migrated to *some* github repository, individual issues can then be "moved" between repositories, and github will redirect from the movefrom-repository's bug to the target repository's bug.
We could also just have llvm.org/PR### be the url only for legacy bugzilla issue numbers -- and have it use a file listing the mappings of bugzilla id -> github id to generate the redirects. (GCC just did this recently for svn revision number redirections, https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-April/232030.html). Then we could introduce a new naming scheme for github issue shortlinks. On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:50 PM Richard Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 12:31, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I wanted to continue discussing the plan to migrate from Bugzilla to >> Github. >> It was suggested that I start a new thread and give a summary of the >> proposal >> and what has changed since it was originally proposed in October. >> >> == Here is the original proposal: >> >> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/136162.html >> >> == What has changed: >> >> * You will be able to subscribe to notifications for a specific issue >> labels. We have a proof of concept notification system using github >> actions >> that will be used for this. >> >> * Emails will be sent to llvm-bugs when issues are opened or closed. >> >> * We have the initial list of labels: >> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/labels >> >> == Remaining issue: >> >> * There is one remaining issue that I don't feel we have consensus on, >> and that is what to do with bugs in the existing bugzilla. Here are some >> options >> that we have discussed: >> >> 1. Switch to GitHub issues for new bugs only. Bugs filed in bugzilla >> that are >> still active will be updated there until they are closed. This means >> that over >> time the number of active bugs in bugzilla will slowly decrease as bugs >> are closed >> out. Then at some point in the future, all of the bugs from bugzilla >> will be archived >> into their own GitHub repository that is separate from the llvm-project >> repo. >> >> 2. Same as 1, but also create a migration script that would allow anyone >> to >> manually migrate an active bug from bugzilla to a GitHub issue in the >> llvm-project >> repo. The intention with this script is that it would be used to migrate >> high-traffic >> or important bugs from bugzilla to GitHub to help increase the visibility >> of the bug. >> This would not be used for mass migration of all the bugs. >> >> 3. Do a mass bug migration from bugzilla to GitHub and enable GitHub >> issues at the same time. >> Closed or inactive bugs would be archived into their own GitHub >> repository, and active bugs >> would be migrated to the llvm-project repo. >> > > Can we preserve the existing bug numbers if we migrate this way? There are > lots of references to "PRxxxxx" in checked in LLVM artifacts and elsewhere > in the world, as well as links to llvm.org/PRxxxxx, and if we can > preserve all the issue numbers this would ease the transition pain > substantially. > > >> The key difference between proposal 1,2 and 3, is when bugs will be >> archived from bugzilla >> to GitHub. Delaying the archiving of bugs (proposals 1 and 2) means that >> we can migrate >> to GitHub issues sooner (within 1-2 weeks), whereas trying to archive >> bugs during the >> transition (proposal 3) will delay the transition for a while (likely >> several months) >> while we evaluate the various solutions for moving bugs from bugzilla to >> GitHub. >> >> >> The original proposal was to do 1 or 2, however there were some concerns >> raised on the list >> that having 2 different places to search for bugs for some period of time >> would >> be very inconvenient. So, I would like to restart this discussion and >> hopefully we can >> come to some kind of conclusion about the best way forward. >> >> Thanks, >> Tom >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
