[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues [UPDATED]

[Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:04 PM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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
> better.
> >
> > (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
> effectively,
> 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
> tightly
> connected components.
>

+1: seems like clangd here is trying a "in-between" approach in being
halfway into a LLVM project. It was something that was strongly pushed back
against multiple times during the discussions on Flang integration, it
isn't clear to me why we'd get into a different approach with clangd. I am
really in favor of keeping a cohesion in the project and not having a
"graph of somehow disconnected projects". There might be sub-optimality
sometimes, but we should address them for everyone instead of one-off
improvements that may benefit one subproject on the short term but I
suspect hurt the project on the long term.

-- 
Mehdi



>
> Getting back to the proposal we are discussing.  Do you have any specific
> feedback
> for improvements that might help make it align better with the kind of
> experience
> the clangd users and developers are looking for?
>
> - Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20200425/4521b1dd/attachment.html>