[flang-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Status of Bugzilla Migration

via flang-dev flang-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Dec 2 08:21:07 PST 2021

If there are new issues created directly in llvm-bugzilla-archive, and they have cross-references to other (new or old) issues, we’d want to make sure they get fixed up along with the originally-from-bugzilla references. (Recall that all issues will be renumbered when they move to llvm-project.)

It would be mildly annoying to have the bug repo move twice instead of once, but if the reference re-writing works correctly then I don’t have any real objection.

From: cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Philip Reames via cfe-dev
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 11:06 AM
To: MyDeveloper Day <mydeveloperday at gmail.com>; Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info>
Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; clang developer list <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Flang Development List <flang-dev at lists.llvm.org>; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org) <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>; polly-dev <polly-dev at googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Status of Bugzilla Migration

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 this.
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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/llvm/llvm-bugzilla-archive/issues__;!!JmoZiZGBv3RvKRSx!vPnNEFBugladxykTZQg0nWDyHh1W0XuGWqLd0Lr8BnkWZqftW5lMz5Qve1zfDp-GwA$> (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://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/bit.ly/3HVjr7a__;!!JmoZiZGBv3RvKRSx!vPnNEFBugladxykTZQg0nWDyHh1W0XuGWqLd0Lr8BnkWZqftW5lMz5Qve1yYHVBnBA$>) 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<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/flang-dev/attachments/20211202/749e9f6b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the flang-dev mailing list