[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] [RFC] LLVM bug lifecycle BoF - triaging

Cranmer, Joshua via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Oct 31 12:17:03 PDT 2018

Mozilla’s Bugzilla instance has a feature called “component watching”, which gives you another set of email filters (for example, receive email only on new bugs, bugs being moved to a component, and status changes). Could we try pulling that extension into the LLVM Bugzilla?

From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Richard Smith via llvm-dev
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 13:32
To: Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; nd at arm.com; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] [RFC] LLVM bug lifecycle BoF - triaging

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018, 08:12 via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
As an llvm-bugs subscriber, I would prefer *not* to have email for every comment to every bug.  That's what the CC list is for.
If the admins guarantee that there is at least one auto-cc (who promises to pay attention) for each component, I think that is sufficient.
I don't agree. That is the status quo and it doesn't work. Sending email to only one person when a bug is updated is really not much better than sending email to no-one. It's unreasonable to expect a single person to triage all bugs in a component or product.

Auto-cc also makes it impractical to track particular bugs one is actually especially interested in. It's just not a good solution.

Having one bugs list per product, that receives email for all bug updates in that product, would seem like a decent solution. That way the various maintainers for that product can all subscribe and use their normal mail filters to classify the mail.

In fact, I think it'd be entirely reasonable to subscribe cfe-dev to all clang bugs (fully subscribe -- email on all updates!). I don't see any reason whatsoever why a bug update should get *less* attention than non-bug development discussion.
Also +1 for UNCONFIRMED.

From: Kristof Beyls [mailto:Kristof.Beyls at arm.com<mailto:Kristof.Beyls at arm.com>]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 10:26 AM
To: Richard Smith
Cc: dean.berris at gmail.com<mailto:dean.berris at gmail.com>; llvm-dev; LLDB Dev; Clang Dev; Tanya Lattner; nd; Robinson, Paul
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [RFC] LLVM bug lifecycle BoF - triaging

On 26 Oct 2018, at 04:26, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk<mailto:richard at metafoo.co.uk>> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 05:10, Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
On 5 Oct 2018, at 07:04, Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com<mailto:dean.berris at gmail.com>> wrote:

Thank you for starting this conversation! I look forward to the results of the BoF discussion summarised as well.

Dean, all,

There was a lively discussion at the BoF; we’ve tried to take notes at https://etherpad.net/p/LLVMBugLifeCycleBoF but probably have failed to capture all the points. The slides used to kick start the discussion can be found at https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ERB9IQAjSwaNpEnlbchQzd_V9IQlLOojgo9J0_NXvYA/edit

Both at the BoF and in the mail thread, there have been many suggestions for improvements. So many that if we’d want to introduce all of them at once, we’d probably get stuck and not introduce any. To try and make progress on the ones I myself feel are most useful, I’ve volunteered for 2 actions:

1. Write up a proposal for documentation on what to do during bug triaging/closing/etc. I’ve just done so and put it up for review at https://reviews.llvm.org/D53691.
2. Write an email to the mailing lists to ask for volunteers for being on the “default-cc” list for components, implying you’re willing to triage bugs reported against those components. I’ve decided to first try and get consensus on what is expected when triaging a bug (see point above) before actively searching for volunteers for all components. That being said, both at the dev meeting and in the days after, I already received many requests from people to be added to the default-cc list for specific components. Of course, I’m very happy to add people volunteering to default-cc lists, so if you don’t want to wait to get added to a default-cc list, please email bugs-admin at lists.llvm.org<mailto:bugs-admin at lists.llvm.org> or raise it as a ticket in bugs.llvm.org<http://bugs.llvm.org/> under “Bugzilla Admin”/“Products”.

Furthermore, since the BoF, I’ve seen a quite a few requests to clean up and introduce new components in Bugzilla. We’ve implemented the changes quickly and will aim to continue to have a quick response time in the future. Please file a ticket in bugs.llvm.org<http://bugs.llvm.org/> under “Bugzilla Admin”/“Products” if you want to request a specific change.

For most of the other points that were raised: I don’t currently plan on acting on them immediately myself and hope to first see an impact of the above actions.

In the original post, there was a suggestion to bring back the "UNCONFIRMED" status. I think that'd be a great idea, as it both makes it easy to search for untriaged bugs and to give feedback to a reporter that their bug is real and acknowledged. Is that planned?

I hadn’t seen too much feedback on the idea for introducing (reintroducing?) the “UNCONFIRMED” status, so hadn’t planned on making changes to that now.
However, I also think it’s a good idea, so I’ll investigate in more detail now if it wouldn’t be overly hard on the Bugzilla admin side to do so (e.g. I believe I’ll have to give all existing users the rights to be able to confirm bugs). If the “UNCONFIRMED” status can be introduced relatively easily, I now plan to do so, and will adapt the proposed documentation at https://reviews.llvm.org/D53691 accordingly.
Thanks for pointing to this!

Also, a big problem with bugzilla as we have it configured today is that commenting on an existing bug often sends mail to literally no-one. Can we reconfigure this so that llvmbugs gets mail for comments on bugs, not just for opening and closing bugs?

I see you’ve created https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39445 for this in the mean time, and that a bit of discussion has started there - including whether sending an email on all comments wouldn’t result in too much spam on the llvmbugs mailing list. I don’t have a strong opinion either way myself. I hope that making sure that there is at least someone on the default-cc list for every component will result in comments on bugs being emailed to at least one person.
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20181031/a77d90aa/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list