[llvm-dev] Bug-closing protocol

Tue Jul 3 04:56:04 PDT 2018

With the CfP out now, I'm actually motivated to organize a BoF on this
topic at the October dev meeting.
I haven't put much thought in yet, but think it'd be awesome if we could at
least make substantial progress on getting to a bug-closing
process/protocol.
As one of the people creating bugzilla accounts for new people, I see
multiple people requesting an account every day, intending to report a bug
for the first time.
I haven't analyzed the statistics, but I fear the experience for those
first-time contributors isn't always great.

I'd be very happy to collaborate on organizing such a BoF.
Please let me know if any of you are interested in co-organizing such a BoF.

Thanks!

Kristof

Op do 21 jun. 2018 om 17:19 schreef Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:

> I'm just an armchair critic with a lot of opinions on what other people
> should do, and not enough willpower to pick one project and make it happen.
> :)
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:57 AM <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:
>
>> So Reid, you'll be running a BoF on this at the October dev meeting? J
>>
>> --paulr
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of *Reid
>> Kleckner via llvm-dev
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 20, 2018 6:12 PM
>> *To:* JVApen at gmail.com
>> *Cc:* llvm-dev
>> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] Bug-closing protocol
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to report bugs! I think you are responsible
>> for filing the most high-quality clang-cl bugs.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope our bug responses continue to be helpful and informative, but
>> things do often get lost in translation. =/
>>
>>
>>
>> I also think there's a lot we could do to improve our bug hygiene and
>> processes as a community. The way our bugzilla is configured, pinging bugs
>> does not sent email to llvm-bugs@, so if an issue is not immediately
>> triaged within a week after filing it, it's very unlikely that anyone will
>> ever find it. As a community, we could set up rotations to triage stale
>> bugs, but this takes resources, commitments, and planning. It's eminently
>> doable, but it's not something that any one person or team of contributors
>> can do on their own, so people tend to shy away from disturbing established
>> processes.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:33 PM JVApen via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> First of all, I'm sorry to create a separate thread on the mailing list,
>> I have disabled all mails from it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I just read the thread about the bug closing protocol thanks to
>> LLVMWeekly. (
>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-June/123955.html)
>>
>>
>>
>> I've noticed a lot of reactions from people involved with the solving
>> part of the bugs. So I'm putting out the loggers point of view. (Or at
>> least mine)
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm totally in favor of getting relevant information when a bug gets
>> closed. Over the last couple of years, I've logged several bugs, of which a
>> couple of clang-cl compatibility bugs where put to invalid.
>>
>> Having a good explanation on why this is closed helped me a lot in
>> manually fixing several thousand of occurrences of that pattern. Both
>> mentally to not give up, as by understanding the problem.
>>
>> Please keep doing so!
>>
>>
>>
>> However, from my point of view, this is the tip of an iceberg. Out of
>> about 50 bugs I've logged on a variety of modules, only half reached an end
>> state. (Either fixed or invalid/won't fix).
>>
>>
>>
>> My problem also lies in that other half, those bugs that have been open
>> for more than 2 weeks (upto 5 years). Cause if you don't get a reaction
>> within those 2 weeks, the chances of getting a reaction drop a lot. (Or if
>> reactions suddenly stop)
>>
>>
>>
>> When a bug goes into such a state, you are lost as a bug logger. It took
>> me a couple of years getting our companies code compiling with clang-cl
>> (linking is far future), working around obscure bugs of which I still don't
>> know if you (as community/maintainer) agree if it is a bug.
>>
>>
>>
>> To make matters worse, every time a component gets upgraded (internal
>> library, extrernal library or even the tool-chain, including clang), there
>> is a high probability of firefighting issues. Only when that fails, I spent
>> time logging a bug (as creduce doesn't work on my system).
>>
>>
>>
>> In the best case scenario, I get an event like this weekend that states:
>> merged.
>>
>> This means: I'm certain I'll have a fix in the future. Unfortunately, it
>> is only available in the next official release, which will happen in
>> September. And with a bit of luck, you can find back what the actual
>> revision is, to see the diff. So for now, the code is ifdef-ed out for
>> clang as it won't link anyhow.
>>
>>
>>
>> In conclusion: I really respect the work you do, this puts the standard
>> on a high level. Taking the time to inform the bug logger is a must have.
>> However, it is not the only place were we as bug loggers are lacking
>> information.
>>
>>
>>
>> JVApen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180703/ce050c28/attachment-0001.html>