[flang-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Status of Bugzilla Migration
Philip Reames via flang-dev
flang-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Dec 2 08:05:36 PST 2021
This thought had occurred to me as well. Using a separate repo for bug
tracking seems reasonable as an intermediate step. Unless there's a
complexity here I'm missing, I'd probably vote for that in favor of
going all the way back to bugzilla.
p.s. Anton, thank you for the update and all the work that has gone into
On 12/2/21 12:18 AM, MyDeveloper Day via llvm-dev wrote:
> What bad stuff happens if you just open up
> <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-bugzilla-archive/issues> (even if you
> then make another historical archive later) to use as the bug tracker
> until you and github have ironed out all the migration from one
> project to another project issues? rather than going all the way back
> to bugzillia which is then going to impose some other multi day
> migration at a later point.
> In my mind I've already divorced from bugzilla, I'm ready to move on
> with my life with github!
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 7:36 AM Anton Korobeynikov via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> Dear All,
> Some of you who are checking the migration notes
> (https://bit.ly/3HVjr7a <https://bit.ly/3HVjr7a>) might already
> have noticed that we're stuck
> again. Let me provide more information about what is going on now and
> what the plans are.
> As a reminder, previously we imported all issues in the archive repo
> and essentially the very last step remained: migration to the live
> llvm-project repo. This step is crucial and one-way, once started we
> cannot undo the steps we'd made. We also have to rely on GitHub here
> as we cannot do it via rate-limited API calls
> During the final checks two issues were revealed:
> - Notifications are still sent in some cases
> - Migration sets the last modification date of the closed issues (it
> looks like it was implemented like "re-open issue, transfer and close
> again"). As a result, all closed issues essentially got sorted
> chronologically before the real open ones.
> These issues were fixed at GitHub side and we proceeded with
> re-checking everything. It turned out that another issue appeared: the
> labels were silently lost and the migrated issues were completely
> labelless, despite being annotated by 140+ labels we had originally.
> For now this is a show-stopper issue. The issue was reported and
> acknowledged by GitHub, however, not ETA was provided.
> Our current options are:
> 1. Abandon the migration
> 2. Wait until the issue is resolved on GitHub side
> 3. Try to find alternative solutions to workaround GitHub issue
> 2. is essentially not an option. I am proposing to abandon the
> migration and unlock the bugzilla if the solution will not be found by
> the end of this week.
> The only alternative I'm seeing is to apply the labels post-migration.
> There are important downsides:
> - This has to be done via GitHub API and we're rate limited to ~5000
> requests per hour, so this means that the labelling will take ~20
> hours. I was told that there is no way for us to have the API rate
> limit increased.
> - This might trigger notifications. My quick check via web ui does
> not, but I cannot be 100% with anything here
> - (the most important) This will screw the "last modified" timestamp
> as label setting is an event that is recorded in the issue. There is
> no way to set some "old" timestamp, it is assigned by GitHub
> For now I'm testing the script for 3. and waiting for any news
> from GitHub.
> I will keep you updated.
> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
> On behalf of LLVM Foundation
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the flang-dev