<div dir="ltr"><div>Quite possibly. I am one of the current self-volunteered triagers on each of the GNU-equivalent LLVM binutils, and somebody who is therefore on the CC list for several bugzilla components with small numbers. I don't have the expertise to triage 95% of issues that come in elsewhere so me being in some kind of high-level bug triager group would simply not work (I don't have the time or desire to sift through other bugs). Similarly, do we expect the people in this proposed triager group to have sufficient knowledge about all parts of LLVM to redirect things appropriately? And how would they redirect things? They could assign an llvm-readelf issue to me or one of the other active maintainers in the corresponding area, for example, but that doesn't mean I'm going to do anything about it (I'll triage incoming bugs, but not necessarily fix most of them - I get paid to work with LLVM, so if there's no business need from my company's point of view, it's unlikely I'll ever look at it beyond the initial triage). That would therefore imply we need a component for the issue to be assigned to so that interested parties can fix it, people who are trying to find out whether something is a known issue can find it, etc.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I agree that each component should have its own group of triagers so that things don't fall into an unacknowledged black hole, but I think these need to be focused components on small areas. A clear breakdown to me is a component for each "project" where I define a project to be something that appears in Visual Studio as such, which in turn translates into each library and each executable (with some obvious exceptions where the library is used by only a single executable or similar such situation).<br></div><div><br></div><div>What is wrong with component tags that aren't necessarily used all that often?<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 16:24, James Y Knight <<a href="mailto:jyknight@google.com">jyknight@google.com</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"><div dir="ltr">I think we ought to setup some sort of organized scheme for volunteers to do triage of incoming issues, to make sure they've got enough actionable info, and direct to the correct people as needed.<div><br></div><div>(This would actually be a really nice thing to have, regardless of which bugtracking system we have.)</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:41 AM James Henderson via cfe-dev <<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-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"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 15:08, Tom Stellard <<a href="mailto:tstellar@redhat.com" target="_blank">tstellar@redhat.com</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">On 03/16/2020 08:00 AM, James Henderson wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 14:44, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> On 02/10/2020 07:40 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:<br>
> > On 01/30/2020 12:47 PM, David Major wrote:<br>
> >> Would it make sense to wait until 10.0.0 is released, in order to keep all the blockers in one place?<br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> > Yes, I think this makes sense, let's postpone until then.<br>
> ><br>
> <br>
> Hi,<br>
> <br>
> 10.0.0-rc4 was just released, and I think we are at the point in the release cycle<br>
> where it is safe to begin the migration to GitHub issues.<br>
> <br>
> I would like to propose doing the migration in one week (March 23). This means<br>
> making the existing bugzilla read-only, and updating the documentation to tell users<br>
> to file issues at GitHub. <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Don't forget to update the URL used in crash messages to point at the right location.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> We are still trying to figure out the best way to import bugs<br>
> from bugzilla into GitHub, so this step will be done at a later date.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Making bugzilla read-only seems like a bad idea until all existing issues have been migrated. What if people need to update an existing bug once the migration to using Github issues has happened before importing has also happened?<br>
> <br>
<br>
This was a mistake on my part. The plan is to disable creation of new bugs in bugzilla and not<br>
to make it read-only. If you look at the original RFC, it says GitHub issues<br>
would be used for new issues, and existing issues will continue to be updated in bugzilla,<br>
and this is what I'm proposing.<br>
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> For the initial list of tags, I propose we generate the list based on the most commonly<br>
> used categories in bugzilla. This should be enough to get us started and we can always<br>
> add more tags as we go.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I'd like this list to be fleshed out before migration is agreed. I'm concerned different people will have wildly different ideas of what "commonly used" might mean, which could in turn have an impact on the viability of this tag list.<br>
> <br>
<br>
Most commonly used here means categories with the most bugs. So, this would be<br>
based on raw bug counts and not just someone's opinion.<br>
<br>
-Tom<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's what I thought might be the case, and where I take issue with it. I've said this on several previous occasions - I think it makes sense for tags/bugzilla components etc. to exist for each individual executable, as well as the various libraries. Let's say I'm a user of a tool like llvm-size and I find a bug. If there wasn't a tag for llvm-size, I wouldn't know where to file it (and no, I don't think a catch-all "binutils" tag is useful - not every developer will know what counts as a "binutils" tag). At the time of writing there are exactly three bugs for llvm-size. That presumably isn't going to meet any threshold imposed, so this tag wouldn't be created, and I wouldn't know where to file my bug, so I probably would either guess (and quite likely get it wrong), or not add a tag, which means that developers who are focused on developing the binutils (and would therefore have subscribed to this tag) won't see the issue. I might even not file the bug at all.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I've also implemented a notification system using GitHub actions that will make<br>
> it possible to subscribe to individual issue tags, so we would enable this on Monday<br>
> as well.<br>
> <br>
> What does everyone think?<br>
> <br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Tom<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> > -Tom<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:32 PM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>>> wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >> On 01/30/2020 10:24 AM, Aaron Ballman wrote:<br>
> >> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:21 PM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev<br>
> >> > <<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>>> wrote:<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> On 10/24/2019 07:54 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote:<br>
> >> >>> 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.<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> 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.<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> Hi,<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> I want to restart this discussion. There seemed to be support for this,<br>
> >> >> but we got held up trying to decide on the appropriate set of tags to<br>
> >> >> use to classify issues.<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> I propose that we move forward with this proposal and disable creation of<br>
> >> >> new bugs in bugzilla on Feb 11, and require all new bugs be filed via GitHub<br>
> >> >> issues from that date forward.<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> I think that for choosing the tags to use, we should just take requests<br>
> >> >> from the community over the next week and add whatever is asked for. The main<br>
> >> >> purpose of adding tags is so we can setup cc lists for bugs, so I think this<br>
> >> >> is a good way to ensure that we have tags people care about. We can always<br>
> >> >> add more tags later if necessary.<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> What does everyone think about this?<br>
> >> ><br>
> >> > What did we decide to do with all the existing issues in Bugzilla?<br>
> >> ><br>
> >><br>
> >> This is undecided. The first step of this proposal only affects new issues.<br>
> >> Existing issues will remain in bugzilla and will be updated there too. At<br>
> >> some point in the future bugzilla will become read-only and/or the issues will<br>
> >> be migrated somewhere else, but no decision has been made about how to do that yet.<br>
> >><br>
> >> -Tom<br>
> >><br>
> >> > ~Aaron<br>
> >> ><br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> -Tom<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >>> Background<br>
> >> >>> ----<br>
> >> >>> Our bugzilla installation is...not great. It's been not-great for a long time now.<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> 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 <a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bugzilla.mozilla.org</a> <<a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://bugzilla.mozilla.org</a>> <<a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://bugzilla.mozilla.org</a>> <<a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://bugzilla.mozilla.org</a>>'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.<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> 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.<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> 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!<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> Proposal<br>
> >> >>> ----<br>
> >> >>> 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.<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> Some things we'd like to get in place before turning on Github's Issue tracker:<br>
> >> >>> 1. Updated documentation.<br>
> >> >>> 2. An initial set of issue tags we'd like to use for triaging/categorizing issues.<br>
> >> >>> 3. Maybe setup an initial issue template. Or maybe multiple templates. Or maybe not.<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> But more important are the things we do /not/ want to make prerequisites for turning on Github issues:<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> 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.<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> 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:<br>
> >> >>> - You can subscribe to notification emails for activity in the entire llvm-project repository.<br>
> >> >>> - You can subscribe to notification emails on an individual issue.<br>
> >> >>> - Someone else can CC you on an individual issue to get your attention, and you will get notifications from that (unless you opt-out).<br>
> >> >>> - No emails will be sent to <a href="mailto:llvm-bugs@llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-bugs@llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-bugs@llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-bugs@llvm.org</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-bugs@llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-bugs@llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-bugs@llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-bugs@llvm.org</a>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-bugs@llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-bugs@llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-bugs@llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-bugs@llvm.org</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-bugs@llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-bugs@llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-bugs@llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-bugs@llvm.org</a>>>> for github issues.<br>
> >> >>> - 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).<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> Further steps<br>
> >> >>> ----<br>
> >> >>> After we migrate, there's still things we want to do:<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> 1. Discuss and setup new and better procedures around bug triage and prioritization.<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> 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 (<a href="https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#issue-triage" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#issue-triage</a>, <a href="https://forge.rust-lang.org/release/triage-procedure.html#issue-triage" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://forge.rust-lang.org/release/triage-procedure.html#issue-triage</a>).<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> 2. Bug migration<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> /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.<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> 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.<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> 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.<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> 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.<br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
> >> >>> <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<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>
> >> >>><br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> >> cfe-dev mailing list<br>
> >> >> <a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>><br>
> >> >> <a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a><br>
> >> ><br>
> >><br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
> >> <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<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>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> cfe-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
> <a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a><br>
> <br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
cfe-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>