[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues
Hubert Tong via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Mar 25 19:38:14 PDT 2020
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 7:41 PM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 03/16/2020 07:53 AM, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:44 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev
> > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 02/10/2020 07:40 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> >>> On 01/30/2020 12:47 PM, David Major wrote:
> >>>> Would it make sense to wait until 10.0.0 is released, in order to
> keep all the blockers in one place?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I think this makes sense, let's postpone until then.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> 10.0.0-rc4 was just released, and I think we are at the point in the
> release cycle
> >> where it is safe to begin the migration to GitHub issues.
> >>
> >> I would like to propose doing the migration in one week (March 23).
> This means
> >> making the existing bugzilla read-only, and updating the documentation
> to tell users
> >> to file issues at GitHub. We are still trying to figure out the best
> way to import bugs
> >> from bugzilla into GitHub, so this step will be done at a later date.
> >>
> >> For the initial list of tags, I propose we generate the list based on
> the most commonly
> >> used categories in bugzilla. This should be enough to get us started
> and we can always
> >> add more tags as we go.
> >>
> >> I've also implemented a notification system using GitHub actions that
> will make
> >> it possible to subscribe to individual issue tags, so we would enable
> this on Monday
> >> as well.
> >>
> >> What does everyone think?
> >
> > I am uncomfortable switching to GitHub issues unless the initial
> > result is that we have ONE set of bugs to track (I do not want to have
> > to search and maintain separate bug lists). Moving bugs from Bugzilla
> > at an unspecified future time is a deal-breaker for me, so -1.
>
> Is there anything we could do to make having active issues in both
> trackers easier to deal with?
>
You asked for if there was "anything". I am not sure how feasible a unified
full text search and view portal would be. Also, I had already suggested
that there should be an agreed convention on how to refer to bugs in
either. If GitHub issues are not uniquely numbered across "projects"
(meaning non-monorepo projects get their own "namespace"), then that
convention might be ugly.
>
> -Tom
>
> >
> > ~Aaron
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Tom
> >>
> >>
> >>> -Tom
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:32 PM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 01/30/2020 10:24 AM, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> >>>> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:21 PM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev
> >>>> > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> On 10/24/2019 07:54 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote:
> >>>> >>> We held a round-table at the llvm dev conference about what
> other pieces of Github infrastructure we may want to use. This thread in
> particular is about switching to github issue tracking. Use of other parts
> of Github functionality was also discussed -- but that should be for other
> email threads.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> Most of the ideas here were from other people. I /believe/
> this proposal represents the overall feeling of the folks at the
> round-table, in spirit if not in exact details, but nobody else has
> reviewed this text, so I can't make any specific such claim as to who the
> "we" represents, other than myself. Just assume all the good ideas here
> were from others, and all the bad parts I misremembered or invented.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Hi,
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> I want to restart this discussion. There seemed to be support
> for this,
> >>>> >> but we got held up trying to decide on the appropriate set of
> tags to
> >>>> >> use to classify issues.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> I propose that we move forward with this proposal and disable
> creation of
> >>>> >> new bugs in bugzilla on Feb 11, and require all new bugs be
> filed via GitHub
> >>>> >> issues from that date forward.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> I think that for choosing the tags to use, we should just take
> requests
> >>>> >> from the community over the next week and add whatever is
> asked for. The main
> >>>> >> purpose of adding tags is so we can setup cc lists for bugs,
> so I think this
> >>>> >> is a good way to ensure that we have tags people care about.
> We can always
> >>>> >> add more tags later if necessary.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> What does everyone think about this?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > What did we decide to do with all the existing issues in
> Bugzilla?
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> This is undecided. The first step of this proposal only affects
> new issues.
> >>>> Existing issues will remain in bugzilla and will be updated there
> too. At
> >>>> some point in the future bugzilla will become read-only and/or
> the issues will
> >>>> be migrated somewhere else, but no decision has been made about
> how to do that yet.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Tom
> >>>>
> >>>> > ~Aaron
> >>>> >
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> -Tom
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>> Background
> >>>> >>> ----
> >>>> >>> Our bugzilla installation is...not great. It's been not-great
> for a long time now.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> Last year, I argued against switching to github issues. I was
> somewhat optimistic that it was possible to improve our bugzilla in some
> incremental ways...but we haven't. Additionally, the upstream bugzilla
> project was supposed to make a new release of bugzilla ("harmony"), based
> on bugzilla.mozilla.org <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org> <
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org>'s fork, which is much nicer. I thought we
> would be able to upgrade to that. But there has been no such release, and
> not much apparent progress towards such. I can't say with any confidence
> that there will ever be. I no longer believe it really makes sense to
> continue using bugzilla.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> This year, we again discussed switching. This time, nobody
> really spoke up in opposition. So, this time, instead of debating /whether/
> we should switch, we discussed /how/ we should switch. And came up with a
> plan to switch quickly.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> GitHub issues may not be perfect, but I see other
> similarly-large projects using it quite successfully (e.g. rust-lang/rust)
> -- so I believe it should be good for us, as well. Importantly, Github
> Issues is significantly less user-hostile than our bugzilla is, for new
> contributors and downstream developers who just want to tell us about bugs!
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> Proposal
> >>>> >>> ----
> >>>> >>> We propose to enable Github issues for the llvm-project
> repository in approximately two weeks from now, and instruct everyone to
> start filing new issues there, rather than in bugzilla.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> Some things we'd like to get in place before turning on
> Github's Issue tracker:
> >>>> >>> 1. Updated documentation.
> >>>> >>> 2. An initial set of issue tags we'd like to use for
> triaging/categorizing issues.
> >>>> >>> 3. Maybe setup an initial issue template. Or maybe multiple
> templates. Or maybe not.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> But more important are the things we do /not/ want to make
> prerequisites for turning on Github issues:
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> We do /not/ yet plan to turn off Bugzilla, and do /not/ plan
> to migrate the existing issues to GitHub as a prerequisite for switching.
> We will thus expect that people continue using bugzilla for commenting on
> the existing bugs -- for the moment.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> We do /not/ want to build supplementary notification systems
> to make github issues send additional emails that it is unable to send
> itself. We will only support what GitHub supports. That means:
> >>>> >>> - You can subscribe to notification emails for activity in
> the entire llvm-project repository.
> >>>> >>> - You can subscribe to notification emails on an individual
> issue.
> >>>> >>> - Someone else can CC you on an individual issue to get your
> attention, and you will get notifications from that (unless you opt-out).
> >>>> >>> - No emails will be sent to llvm-bugs at llvm.org <mailto:
> llvm-bugs at llvm.org> <mailto:llvm-bugs at llvm.org <mailto:llvm-bugs at llvm.org>>
> for github issues.
> >>>> >>> - There is no builtin way for users to subscribe to emails
> for bugs that have a given label (for example, all "clang" issues, or all
> x86 issues).
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> Further steps
> >>>> >>> ----
> >>>> >>> After we migrate, there's still things we want to do:
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> 1. Discuss and setup new and better procedures around bug
> triage and prioritization.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> What we have been doing up until now has not been great in
> any case. Switching bug-trackers is a great opportunity to try to do
> something better. E.g., like what the rust project has done (
> https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#issue-triage,
> https://forge.rust-lang.org/release/triage-procedure.html#issue-triage).
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> 2. Bug migration
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> /After/ the initial switchover, we do want to investigate two
> possibilities for migrating issues and turning off the bugzilla server. I
> expect which one is chosen will come down mostly to feasibility of
> implementation.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> Possibility 1: Migrate /all/ the existing bugs into a
> secondary "llvm-bugs-archive" github repository, and then turn off
> bugzilla. Github offers the ability to move bugs from one repository to
> another, and so we can use this to move bugs that are still relevant
> afterwards (potentially this could be done automatically upon any
> activity). Then, shut down bugzilla, and leave behind only a redirect
> script.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> Possibility 2: Create the ability to import an individual bug
> from Bugzilla into the llvm-project repository by pressing a "migrate this
> bug to github" button. Then, leave bugzilla running only as a static
> snapshot -- as static as possible while leaving the "migrate this bug to
> github" button operational.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> In both cases, we'd want to support a redirect script to take
> you from the old bug ids to the migrated bug page. In both cases, we would
> /preserve/ the entire archive of existing bugs, but would not import the
> entire set into the "llvm-project" github repository.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>>> >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> >>>> >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>> >> cfe-dev mailing list
> >>>> >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> >>>> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> >>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cfe-dev mailing list
> >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200325/1e9228d7/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list