[PATCH] D146819: [llvm][github] Add good-first-issue comment to issues

Mon Apr 3 05:24:10 PDT 2023

aaron.ballman added a comment.

In D146819#4238098 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D146819#4238098>, @tbaeder wrote:

> In D146819#4233226 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D146819#4233226>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
>
>> Thank you for working on this, I think it's a really good idea! One issue I see with it though is that the GitHub issues list is used by multiple projects (llvm, clang, lldb, libc++, etc) but the way in which you contribute to these projects differ. So I think these instructions will work great for most folks, but we may want to consider the other projects and whether we need to adjust any wording here accordingly. (Personally, I think any project within the monorepo that diverges from the usual policies sufficiently enough to cause problems like this should either consider moving out of the monorepo or changing their policies to be in line with the rest of the monorepo, but that's a much bigger discussion than this patch. I think this patch kind of demonstrates why those policy differences cause friction for new contributors.)
>
> Right, I was thinking the script could be more sophisticated and e.g. check that any of the labels are of the "clang:" kind - and then post clang-specific instructions, and do the same for lld, libc++, etc. but that's just not an exact science.
>
> If these instructions are a problem for any of the subprojects, we can still iterate on them. Should I maybe add someone from lld/lldb/libc++/etc. to the CC here?

>From what I've seen on the issues list for Clang, most of the time the person filing the issue is not the person adding labels to the issue. Instead, someone triaging the issues list sees there's a "new issue" label on something and they remove it and add the appropriate labels, including "good first issue".

So I think that maybe we should reword `Thank you for your interest in working on this LLVM issue.` into `This issue may be a good introductory issue for people new to working on LLVM. If you would like to work on this issue, your first steps are:` or something along those lines?

But this also points out that perhaps basing the text on labels is not going to work consistently; it's not uncommon to add "good first issue" before adding e.g., "lldb" and so it's reasonably possible we'd generate the text before we know the final set of labels on the issue.

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D146819/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D146819