[llvm-dev] IMPORTANT: LLVM Bugzilla migration

Tue Nov 23 00:51:09 PST 2021

I've got zero issues with the principle of moving to GitHub issues at all.
I'm a little concerned by the process here though. Infrastructure projects
should be treated just the same as code - it should be open to reviews and
consensus driven. Details such as "when" are certainly within the scope of
this process, and basically refusing to address concerns that members of
the community have asked is no better for infrastructure than it is for a
code review.

James

On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 07:31, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 3:45 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> +1 with every James said, in particular this last paragraph.
>
> It is amazing that this project finally looks close to completion, but as
> far as I can tell (and I'm following the iwg@ mailing list as well by the
> way) there hasn't been a single mockup or test instance that has been
> shared with the community so that we can have an idea of what does it look
> like.
> There has been very little communication or documentation on this in 2021
> as far as I can tell. We just had the LLVM dev meeting last week, this was
> a perfect opportunity for a demo of the proposed end result and a round
> table. In comparison, the previous big migrations (SVN to GitHub) went
> through multiple stages of prototype and demos that were openly shared with
> the community.
>
> Can we get this demo done and have a proper review of the state of the
> post-migration? (before any migration happens obviously)
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> --
> Mehdi
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20211123/3ae552d5/attachment.html>