[llvm-dev] IMPORTANT: LLVM Bugzilla migration

[James Y Knight via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 3:36 PM Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info>
wrote:

> > If we can attribute it to an anonymous entity, e.g. by putting
> "Anonymous LLVM Contributor 123 wrote:" at the top of a comment by llvmbot,
> at least readers can understand whether two comments on a bug are from the
> same person or from different people, for example. Can we at least do
> something like that?
> We do this for issues. They are marked as submitted by "LLVM Bugzilla
> Contributor".
>

As I said, the purpose would be to allow disambiguating multiple anonymous
contributors, e.g. by suffixing a unique number to each anonymous
contributor. The reply misses that point.

> And, if such a problem exists, I think we ought to address that problem
> before migration.
> They had more than half a year to submit a survey and received
> multiple notifications. We are not going to delay the migration due to
> this.


My understanding from what you said is that you have sent a single
notification to each user back in April. (Plus a mailing list post, before
that, in March.) If that is enough to capture most active users, great! But
it sounds like it was not. You can't blame the users if a large percentage
of them have a problem. That points to a problem in the process, not the
people.

> Some other questions that pop into my mind:
> Great! Thanks for the questions. Probably they should have asked 2
> years ago. You will be able to check the results by yourself after the
> migration.


It feels to me like you're being intentionally disingenuous here, and that
makes me sad. My questions are about the migration plan/process/decisions *as
it is now finally implemented*, not the initial ideas for migration from
2019. I don't think that a request that the final plan be written down and
reviewable by others is out-of-line or unexpected.

Until very recently, it seemed like wasn't even clear that a migration
would be feasible under the proposed scheme at all, and that the tooling
was still under active development. Now that it's clear that it can be done
(which is great news!), the next step I expected was a detailed writeup of
the final characteristics of the implementation, and what things are
expected to look like afterwards. Instead, at basically the first point
where it's known that this is actually feasible, it's too late to ask any
questions? There's no documentation of what's been implemented? No
description even of what users should expect after migration? I do not
understand this.

Certainly it's possible for a project to turn out successfully without a
written design, documentation, or review. But isn't that unnecessarily
risky?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20211122/9877cc14/attachment.html>