<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I agree with everything said here, to me this seems like the most
sane option. It seems like this approach could also be tested at a
smaller scale if there are concerns about deleting a repo, to see
if there is any observable effect.</p>
<p>While I haven't performed this particular trick on Github, based
on my experience renaming and removing repositories, I wouldn't
expect any significant issue to occur here. It certainly seems
less problematic to me, than writing into existing issues (if
any), and pull requests.</p>
<p>Using new issues, in a new repository not only has UI/UX
benefits, but also ensures bugs are accurately transferred to a
neutral party (presumably a bot account is going to be the creator
of these issues).</p>
<p>I'm also going to add an additional concern/question I haven't
seen mentioned. Has there been any research done, or strategy
picked that would prevent those watching the llvm-project
repository from getting spammed with thousands of
emails/notifications? Perhaps the llvm organization has the
ability to stop this, but smaller projects I've seen move to
github issues have generally sent dozens-hundreds of emails in the
process of importing their issues -- this seems notably
undesirable. (The "bait-and-switch" tactic might actually help
here as presumably the new repository could be hidden/unwatched
until all issues are imported)<br>
</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Wyatt<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/1/20 1:06 PM, via llvm-dev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-563d90a3-2cf5-4975-ae33-e3c7890aae09-1588352762274@3c-app-gmx-bap72">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>> Please reply to this proposal with your questions,
comments, praise, or concerns.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think it's by and large a good plan, but I'd consider
it a largely unnecessary wart to copy issues into existing
PRs (OP would always have the wrong user, etc.).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In a previous mail on this thread there was the proposal
for a "bait-and-switch" style approach, which basically
branches off from the proposal around step 5, by locking
llvm/llvm-project, syncing all branches
with llvm-bug-archive, and then deleting llvm-project and
renaming the bug archive to llvm-project.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I understand that there are unknown unknowns about
deleting and replacing the repo in place (maybe those could
be allayed by some GH people?), but if that remains a
show-stopper, then I was wondering if it has been considered
that the new repo could simply just be called llvm/llvm?
This would be a nice and short name which is not taken, and
then llvm/llvm-project could be archived, and people would
only have to change their git remote once. I hope such a
suggestion is not seen as sacrilege - my understanding of
the llvm-history is hazy at best, but AFAICT the "-project"
suffix is not necessary anymore, now that all the
subprojects have been absorbed in the monorepo for a while.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best regards</div>
<div>H.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div class="signature"> </div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>