[llvm-dev] IMPORTANT: LLVM Bugzilla migration

[Tom Stellard via llvm-dev]

On 11/22/21 15:45, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 3:36 PM Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info <mailto: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.
> 


I know it's hard to keep track of all the email threads, but it definitely
would have been more helpful to ask these questions closer
to Oct 11, when Anton outlined the how the migration would work.  I
understand the desire to have the best possible data, but at some
point we have to move forward.  For many months the migration was
blocked due to lack of communication from GitHub.  We finally have
their attention now, and we don't want to lose it again.

We have been discussing this on the Infrastructure Working Group
meetings since August.  There has been a lot of time on the list to
ask questions and give feedback.  I really think we need to just
move forward.

Anton has already committed his time to do the migration this weekend.
If it doesn't happen then, who is going to volunteer to do it?  Anton
doesn't have unlimited free time and has already invested a lot of effort
into the migration.

-Tom

> 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?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>