[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues [UPDATED]
Sam McCall via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Apr 24 15:43:23 PDT 2020
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 11:36 PM Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 14:13, Sam McCall via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 9:03 PM Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/24/2020 03:24 AM, Sam McCall wrote:
>>> > clangd's experience using github issues to track bugs (in a separate
>>> repo) has been very positive, and I'm glad you're pushing on this!
>>> > Part of this has been that our issue tracker has been scoped to our
>>> subproject only, which is a scope that the tool works well for (on the user
>>> and developer side).
>>> > As such I don't think we should migrate clangd to a using the monorepo
>>> bugtracker. Email subscription to a label is better than nothing, but worse
>>> than a separate repo.
>>> > Removing the clangd label from the monorepo bugtracker seems like the
>>> simplest thing, though I'm happy to work on auto-moving bugs if that's
>>> > (I'd suggest considering the same for other subprojects, though I know
>>> that's not a popular opinion here)
>>> I think it's important for everything in the monorepo to use the same
>>> bug tracker.
>>> There are advantages to having code in the monorepo (e.g. free
>>> updates for API changes, a more consistent build experience, etc.).
>>> But there are also costs, as you have pointed out, like having to use
>>> a less than ideal bug tracker. It's really up to sub-projects
>>> to make the decision about whether these benefits are worth the costs.
>>> The flang developers have just gone through this process and have
>>> had to make some sacrifices to get the code in, but ultimately felt the
>>> sacrifices were worth it.
>>> I think it hurts the ability of developers and users to collaborate
>>> if the infrastructure for the project is spread across too many
>>> different places.
>>> And good collaboration is key for a project of this size with some many
>>> connected components.
>> (sorry, I should probably not tilt at this windmill. More on-topic stuff
>> below, I promise!)
>> Right, and I think having a single-project view of the LLVM organization
>> is a mistake: it's a graph of projects, some are highly connected and some
>> are not.
>> The monorepo has a strong technical reason: the graph is connected and
>> accepting a CI boundary anywhere is expensive in the absence of stable APIs.
>> But this is much less true for bug tracking systems: the cost to crossing
>> boundaries is smaller.
>> For clangd, the benefit of sharing a tracker with clang AST+Sema is less
>> than the cost of sharing a tracker with clang codegen, LLVM proper, LLD,
>> flang, MLIR, ... (and the opposite is true for source control/CI).
>> Anyway, this is going to depend on what part(s) of the project graph you
>> touch: people connected to many parts will want to make coordinating with
>> hundreds of people incrementally, while people connected to few parts are
>> far better served by communicating only with the people they need to
>> (communication famously scales badly).
> I would assume we will eventually want to open up our github repository to
> pull requests. When that happens, if you use a separate bugtracker then
> clangd issues will be split across the two: pull requests will be sent to
> the monorepo because (as far as I'm aware) a pull request for a repo can
> only be sent to that repo's issue tracker, but your "regular" issues will
> be elsewhere.
I think we probably are underestimating this aspect. (Though it's future
and not certain, so some discount applies!)
At a technical level it's not worse than the phab/GH issues separation we
have today, but it might be more confusing and we might miss out on
> And even that is a rosier picture than I expect you'll actually
> experience: people will file issues for clangd on the issue tracker
> attached to the clangd repository, simply because that's how the github
> workflow works in general.
In principle we can address this by automatically transferring issues based
on label. Might add to the confusion though.
> So if you keep a separate issue tracker, I think you will de facto end up
> with two issue trackers for clangd, and will spend some amount of ongoing
> effort managing that. So, I think you might be underestimating the costs
> here if you've not taken that into account already. That said, moving
> issues between repos is apparently feasible, so it seems like we could use
> clangd as an experiment to find out how major or minor these concerns
> actually are.
Or a different type of experiment: clangd deliberately supports both
trackers for a while and see works better.
> Getting back to the proposal we are discussing. Do you have any specific
>>> for improvements that might help make it align better with the kind of
>>> the clangd users and developers are looking for?
>> Sorry if it seemed I was trying to derail: I think sharding into multiple
>> repos *is* a specific improvement that should be considered, though there
>> are arguments against it.
>> If "the proposal we are discussing" doesn't admit changes, well, I'm +1
>> on its current form too :-)
>> Other suggestions:
>> Issue templates: I think you need at least one for each component.
>> Users will be less familiar with the bug tracker conventions than
>> developers are, especially given that this one is unusual in covering
>> multiple products. Forcing a choice between the "component" tags as well as
>> guiding them to include relevant info leaves less of an unstructured mess
>> to triage. This helps mitigate the fact that the UI won't separate
>> component tags like "lld" from others like "crash-on-invalid".
>> (Fortunately these don't need to be maintained centrally: editing
>> templates just needs commit access)
>> Tag namespace: I can see this becoming a mess quickly, it's hard to
>> choose the right tags if there are too many, so there can be a bit of a
>> tragedy-of-the-commons. (Seeding it with lots of "component" tags doesn't
>> help). Maybe these should be centrally designed.
>> I wonder if the "projects" feature can be used for components? It's not
>> really the intended purpose (looks like they're supposed to be time-limited
>> like sprints) but maybe they can work as a second tag namespace, and the
>> name fits...
>> Releases: my most active times on bugzilla are when dealing with release
>> blockers in the run-up to a release. As GH issues lacks blocking bugs, I'm
>> a bit curious what the workflow is for this (and probably worth considering
>> before the release is upon us). I guess "projects" might be a good fit.
>> Preserving bug numbers: seems worth it to me, but I have no special
>> Again, thanks a lot for working on this, I think it'll be a substantial
>> improvement to land it in any form (however much I end up using it myself).
>>> - Tom
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev