<div dir="ltr"><div>Please could we replace the "llvm-tools" with a single label for each LLVM tool (i.e. labels for llvm-ar, llvm-as, llvm-cxxfilt, llvm-objdump etc etc). As mentioned on multiple occasions now, this is much more user-friendly both for people filing issues, and for those like myself who are only interested in certain tools within the tools directory. New bugs can easily be attributed to the tool by finding the label that matches the executable name. As for subscribing, there are many llvm-* tools that I am not interested in because they have nothing to do with the toolchain my company provides. Being subscribed to all bugs in relation to this simply will result in me getting extra noise in my inbox, leading me to be more inclined to ignore things and thus miss items that I'm actually interested in. This will therefore reduce the volume of triage done, which in turn will have a negative impact on the quality of the project (both in leaving important bugs unaddressed and in disincentivising people from filing bugs in this area in the future).<br></div><div><br></div><div>Just because a bugzilla component doesn't get high traffic doesn't mean it isn't useful.</div><div><br></div><div>Strong -1 to the migration until this has been addressed, as my previous concerns seem to be being ignored.<br></div><div><br></div><div>See also <a href="http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-November/127692.html">http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-November/127692.html</a> (why we shouldn't limit bugzilla components based on numbers of bugs filed), and my thread here <a href="http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-March/139953.html">http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-March/139953.html</a> (which included discussions on triage groups, and how some of us are quite focused on small areas, all of which are related).</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>James<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 20:31, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
I wanted to continue discussing the plan to migrate from Bugzilla to Github.<br>
It was suggested that I start a new thread and give a summary of the proposal<br>
and what has changed since it was originally proposed in October.<br>
<br>
== Here is the original proposal:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/136162.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/136162.html</a><br>
<br>
== What has changed:<br>
<br>
* You will be able to subscribe to notifications for a specific issue<br>
labels. We have a proof of concept notification system using github actions<br>
that will be used for this.<br>
<br>
* Emails will be sent to llvm-bugs when issues are opened or closed.<br>
<br>
* We have the initial list of labels: <a href="https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/labels" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/labels</a><br>
<br>
== Remaining issue:<br>
<br>
* There is one remaining issue that I don't feel we have consensus on,<br>
and that is what to do with bugs in the existing bugzilla. Here are some options<br>
that we have discussed:<br>
<br>
1. Switch to GitHub issues for new bugs only. Bugs filed in bugzilla that are<br>
still active will be updated there until they are closed. This means that over<br>
time the number of active bugs in bugzilla will slowly decrease as bugs are closed<br>
out. Then at some point in the future, all of the bugs from bugzilla will be archived<br>
into their own GitHub repository that is separate from the llvm-project repo.<br>
<br>
2. Same as 1, but also create a migration script that would allow anyone to<br>
manually migrate an active bug from bugzilla to a GitHub issue in the llvm-project<br>
repo. The intention with this script is that it would be used to migrate high-traffic<br>
or important bugs from bugzilla to GitHub to help increase the visibility of the bug.<br>
This would not be used for mass migration of all the bugs.<br>
<br>
3. Do a mass bug migration from bugzilla to GitHub and enable GitHub issues at the same time.<br>
Closed or inactive bugs would be archived into their own GitHub repository, and active bugs<br>
would be migrated to the llvm-project repo.<br>
<br>
<br>
The key difference between proposal 1,2 and 3, is when bugs will be archived from bugzilla<br>
to GitHub. Delaying the archiving of bugs (proposals 1 and 2) means that we can migrate<br>
to GitHub issues sooner (within 1-2 weeks), whereas trying to archive bugs during the<br>
transition (proposal 3) will delay the transition for a while (likely several months)<br>
while we evaluate the various solutions for moving bugs from bugzilla to GitHub.<br>
<br>
<br>
The original proposal was to do 1 or 2, however there were some concerns raised on the list<br>
that having 2 different places to search for bugs for some period of time would<br>
be very inconvenient. So, I would like to restart this discussion and hopefully we can<br>
come to some kind of conclusion about the best way forward.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Tom<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>