[Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues [UPDATED]

[Tom Stellard via Openmp-dev]

On 04/20/2020 12:49 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 12:31, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     I wanted to continue discussing the plan to migrate from Bugzilla to Github.
>     It was suggested that I start a new thread and give a summary of the proposal
>     and what has changed since it was originally proposed in October.
> 
>     == Here is the original proposal:
> 
>     http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/136162.html
> 
>     == What has changed:
> 
>     * You will be able to subscribe to notifications for a specific issue
>       labels.  We have a proof of concept notification system using github actions
>       that will be used for this.
> 
>     * Emails will be sent to llvm-bugs when issues are opened or closed.
> 
>     * We have the initial list of labels: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/labels
> 
>     == Remaining issue:
> 
>     * There is one remaining issue that I don't feel we have consensus on,
>     and that is what to do with bugs in the existing bugzilla.  Here are some options
>     that we have discussed:
> 
>     1. Switch to GitHub issues for new bugs only.  Bugs filed in bugzilla that are
>     still active will be updated there until they are closed.  This means that over
>     time the number of active bugs in bugzilla will slowly decrease as bugs are closed
>     out.  Then at some point in the future, all of the bugs from bugzilla will be archived
>     into their own GitHub repository that is separate from the llvm-project repo.
> 
>     2. Same as 1, but also create a migration script that would allow anyone to
>     manually migrate an active bug from bugzilla to a GitHub issue in the llvm-project
>     repo.  The intention with this script is that it would be used to migrate high-traffic
>     or important bugs from bugzilla to GitHub to help increase the visibility of the bug.
>     This would not be used for mass migration of all the bugs.
> 
>     3. Do a mass bug migration from bugzilla to GitHub and enable GitHub issues at the same time.
>     Closed or inactive bugs would be archived into their own GitHub repository, and active bugs
>     would be migrated to the llvm-project repo.
> 
> 
> Can we preserve the existing bug numbers if we migrate this way? There are lots of references to "PRxxxxx" in checked in LLVM artifacts and elsewhere in the world, as well as links to llvm.org/PRxxxxx <http://llvm.org/PRxxxxx>, and if we can preserve all the issue numbers this would ease the transition pain substantially.
>  

For all 3 proposals we want to be able to preserver the llvm.org/PRxxxx links so that
they continue to provide useful information.  Eventually once bugzilla is shut down,
those links would point to an issue somewhere in GitHub.

We don't have a solution for this today and this is one of the reasons why proposal
3 will take so long to implement, because we need to solve this problem before we start any
kind of transition.

This is also the reason why proposals 1 and 2 were originally favored, because they allow us
to transition to GitHub issues for new bugs sooner, while still maintaining the PRxxxx
links in bugzilla.  This gives us time to work out a good long-term solution to maintaining
the links without further delaying the transition to GitHub issues.

-Tom



> 
>     The key difference between proposal 1,2 and 3, is when bugs will be archived from bugzilla
>     to GitHub.  Delaying the archiving of bugs (proposals 1 and 2) means that we can migrate
>     to GitHub issues sooner (within 1-2 weeks), whereas trying to archive bugs during the
>     transition (proposal 3) will delay the transition for a while (likely several months)
>     while we evaluate the various solutions for moving bugs from bugzilla to GitHub.
> 
> 
>     The original proposal was to do 1 or 2, however there were some concerns raised on the list
>     that having 2 different places to search for bugs for some period of time would
>     be very inconvenient.  So, I would like to restart this discussion and hopefully we can
>     come to some kind of conclusion about the best way forward.
> 
>     Thanks,
>     Tom
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>