[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues [UPDATED]
Philip Reames via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Apr 27 09:07:30 PDT 2020
On 4/25/20 10:02 PM, Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:04 PM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto: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.
+1. Agreed w/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 <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev