[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues [UPDATED]
James Henderson via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Apr 21 01:36:50 PDT 2020
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).
Just because a bugzilla component doesn't get high traffic doesn't mean it
Strong -1 to the migration until this has been addressed, as my previous
concerns seem to be being ignored.
See also http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-November/127692.html
(why we shouldn't limit bugzilla components based on numbers of bugs
filed), and my thread here
included discussions on triage groups, and how some of us are quite focused
on small areas, all of which are related).
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 20:31, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I wanted to continue discussing the plan to migrate from Bugzilla to
> It was suggested that I start a new thread and give a summary of the
> and what has changed since it was originally proposed in October.
> == Here is the original proposal:
> == What has changed:
> * You will be able to subscribe to notifications for a specific issue
> labels. We have a proof of concept notification system using github
> that will be used for this.
> * Emails will be sent to llvm-bugs when issues are opened or closed.
> * We have the initial list of labels:
> == Remaining issue:
> * There is one remaining issue that I don't feel we have consensus on,
> and that is what to do with bugs in the existing bugzilla. Here are some
> that we have discussed:
> 1. Switch to GitHub issues for new bugs only. Bugs filed in bugzilla that
> still active will be updated there until they are closed. This means that
> time the number of active bugs in bugzilla will slowly decrease as bugs
> are closed
> out. Then at some point in the future, all of the bugs from bugzilla will
> be archived
> into their own GitHub repository that is separate from the llvm-project
> 2. Same as 1, but also create a migration script that would allow anyone to
> manually migrate an active bug from bugzilla to a GitHub issue in the
> repo. The intention with this script is that it would be used to migrate
> or important bugs from bugzilla to GitHub to help increase the visibility
> of the bug.
> This would not be used for mass migration of all the bugs.
> 3. Do a mass bug migration from bugzilla to GitHub and enable GitHub
> issues at the same time.
> Closed or inactive bugs would be archived into their own GitHub
> repository, and active bugs
> would be migrated to the llvm-project repo.
> The key difference between proposal 1,2 and 3, is when bugs will be
> archived from bugzilla
> to GitHub. Delaying the archiving of bugs (proposals 1 and 2) means that
> we can migrate
> to GitHub issues sooner (within 1-2 weeks), whereas trying to archive bugs
> during the
> transition (proposal 3) will delay the transition for a while (likely
> several months)
> while we evaluate the various solutions for moving bugs from bugzilla to
> The original proposal was to do 1 or 2, however there were some concerns
> raised on the list
> that having 2 different places to search for bugs for some period of time
> be very inconvenient. So, I would like to restart this discussion and
> hopefully we can
> come to some kind of conclusion about the best way forward.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev