llvm dev - Oct 2019 - RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues

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.


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'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 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191024/7ee65da3/attachment.html>

Any chance of setting bugzilla to make it not possible to file new issues
there?

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:55 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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.
>
>
> 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'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 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
> 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/20191024/5537a9be/attachment.html>

Yes, that should be possible to do that without also disabling comments on
existing issues.

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:59 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Any chance of setting bugzilla to make it not possible to file new issues
> there?
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:55 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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'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 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
>> 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/20191024/86e2f462/attachment.html>

Hi James,

Good write-up, and I'm in favour.

One other thing I remembered from the round-table was that I think we
did talk about extending e-mail CC flexibility as a future goal.
Chandler mentioned there may well even be off the shelf solutions we
could use that integrate with GitHub, but no-one spoke up saying that
should block the initial proposed activation in 2 weeks.

Cheers.

Tim.

I strongly support this. I quite prefer GitHub issue to our current bugzilla
setup.

> On Oct 24, 2019, at 7:54 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> 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.
> 
> 
> 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/>'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> 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://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#issue-triage>,
https://forge.rust-lang.org/release/triage-procedure.html#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
> 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/20191024/dd59f613/attachment.html>

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote:
> 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).
One thing comes to mind wrt workflows and how I often use bugzilla: After 
bisecting a regression and filing a bug with the reproducer, I try to add 
CCs for the author of the commit and potentially the reviewers who were 
involved with the commit.

In bugzilla it's fairly easy to try type people's names (which you find 
easily via the Phabricator review) and bugzilla will autocomplete and let 
you pick whoever seems to match what you typed.

In github I'd presume you need to know the github username of the ones you 
want to CC. For the cases where it matches the Phabricator username, this 
is straightforward, but I'm sure there's a significant number of users 
where the mapping isn't obvious.

After filing a regression bug I normally link to it from the originating 
review thread as well, which hopefully serves as notification to the same 
people as well though. (But depending on mail sorting habits and use of 
Phabricator, where e.g. I normally only list open reviews, it can be easy 
to miss a comment on a closed review).


// Martin

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:55 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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.
>
Thanks for writing the proposal!
This is reflecting quite well the overall conclusion of the round-table on
this topic I think.

>
>
> 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'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 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.
>
Are you excluding his as a prerequisite because we don't have confidence
this can be achieved very quickly?

-- 
Mehdi



>
> 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
> 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/20191025/db4f3a9c/attachment.html>

> Are you excluding his as a prerequisite because we don't have
confidence this can be achieved very quickly?
Yes. And besides the necessary tooling (fortunately, there are some
scripts for this) it also relies on lots of things fully done, e.g.
the list of all tags for us to build the mapping from e.g. components
to tags, etc.

-- 
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019, Martin Storsjö via llvm-dev wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
> One thing comes to mind wrt workflows and how I often use bugzilla: After 
> bisecting a regression and filing a bug with the reproducer, I try to add
CCs
> for the author of the commit and potentially the reviewers who were
involved
> with the commit.
>
> In bugzilla it's fairly easy to try type people's names (which you
find
> easily via the Phabricator review) and bugzilla will autocomplete and let
you
> pick whoever seems to match what you typed.
>
> In github I'd presume you need to know the github username of the ones
you
> want to CC. For the cases where it matches the Phabricator username, this
is
> straightforward, but I'm sure there's a significant number of users
where the
> mapping isn't obvious.
Replying to myself here - I rememeberd that when viewing a commit on 
github, github is actually very good at replacing any references to the 
original author name with their github username (to the extent that it 
actually is hard to find the realname of the author when viewing a 
commit).

So for CCing people on issues, the author/committer should be easy to 
discover; potential related reviewers are the only ones where discovering 
their github usernames might be tricky. And that's much less important.

// Martin

Thanks for writing this up! I can also confirm that I was there and it's
accurate to my memory.

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:55 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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 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).
>
I wanted to say a bit to support the direction of not setting up a new
whole-project notification system to replace llvm-bugs at .

LLVM as a project is much bigger than it was when llvm-bugs@ was created.
These days, new developers do not generally subscribe to llvm-bugs@, and if
they do, they don't use it to triage issues. What happens in practice is
that we have a subset of developers who do triage, add the component, and
CC individuals who know the code in question. We don't need a single
mailing list for all bugs to replicate this process. We could instead
document a process of triage, where triagers periodically run a search to
find issues without tags and then apply tags and CCs as we do today. We
could formalize this with a rotation, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

I really would love to find a way to get email notifications from a
specific issue tag, but I don't want to block opening the new tracker on
that. Until we find a solution to that, we'll have to get used to
refreshing a bookmarked search for our favorite tags. I recall that this
was discussed during the round table, and people generally agreed that new
users being able to find bugs was more important than a good subscription
system.

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.
>
I guess "possibility 1" seems like the best to me. Once we get a good
backup of all the data, it lets us turn off bugzilla sooner. It also seems
easier since there are probably existing scripts to do this that we can
reuse.

I'll also mention the llvm.org/pr* link scheme. We should probably make
those perma-links.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191025/bad8f8b4/attachment.html>

> 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.
Is that only new issues?  Or all activity?  If it's all activity on all
issues, you're effectively auto-subscribing to all issues, and really nobody
would want that.  Well, maybe, like, 3 people.
> - 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 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).
That last is really unfortunate.  Someone only interested in (say) LLDB issues
would have to subscribe to all notifications and hope that there are enough
breadcrumbs in a new issue to be able to do accurate email filtering.  It would
be better to handle this in the bug tracker itself.
Last year Kristof Beyls and I did a BoF on bug handling, and my memory is that a
nonzero number of people were willing to be auto-CC'd on particular topics
but did not want to subscribe to llvm-bugs.  This description of the github
tracker means that would not be feasible, which is a step backwards.
I can anticipate a counter-argument which is that someone can easily search for
bugs with particular tags.  I claim that's not equivalent, because it
requires action on the part of the person to go look for things, and that
happens only when the person thinks of doing it.  Computers should automate the
tedious parts, like alerting the people who are interested in issues with a
particular tag.

--paulr

Generally supportive here, but I see a couple of small concerns.

On 10/24/19 7:54 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.
>
>
> 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>'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.
I think two weeks is simply too quick.  Our community is huge, there's 
inherently a delay with information dissemination and we want objectors 
to have a chance to respond.  4-8 weeks would be a much more realistic 
time frame.
>
> 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> 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).
The last two items are *very* unfortunate.  A quick skim through the API 
documentation (https://developer.github.com/v3/issues/) would seem to 
indicate implementing these fairly straight forward.  I think it might 
be worth implementing our own custom scripts here.

I'm legitimately torn as to whether this should be considered a 
blocker.  I don't actually use either method, so my personal vote is no, 
but I believe others do.  Breaking existing workflows when relatively 
little effort is required not to seems less than idea.

>
> 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
> 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/20191025/e010e789/attachment.html>

> Is that only new issues?  Or all activity?  If it's all activity on all
issues, you're effectively auto-subscribing to all issues, and really nobody
would want that.  Well, maybe, like, 3 people.
Looking at docs for notification:
https://help.github.com/en/github/receiving-notifications-about-activity-on-github/about-notifications#types-of-notifications

There are 4 levels:
- ignore all notifications including @mention
- notification on @mention or if participating (left a comment, owner of
issue/PR)
- notification on releases + previous item
- get notification about *all* activity: every update in every issue/PR

However, there is such thing as teams:
https://help.github.com/en/github/setting-up-and-managing-organizations-and-teams/about-teams

We could create teams for front-end, back-ends, static analyzer and all other
components to quickly summon all potentially interested people.


-----Original Message-----
From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Robinson,
Paul via llvm-dev
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 9:35 PM
To: James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com>; 'llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org' <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues
> 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.
Is that only new issues?  Or all activity?  If it's all activity on all
issues, you're effectively auto-subscribing to all issues, and really nobody
would want that.  Well, maybe, like, 3 people.
> - 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 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).
That last is really unfortunate.  Someone only interested in (say) LLDB issues
would have to subscribe to all notifications and hope that there are enough
breadcrumbs in a new issue to be able to do accurate email filtering.  It would
be better to handle this in the bug tracker itself.
Last year Kristof Beyls and I did a BoF on bug handling, and my memory is that a
nonzero number of people were willing to be auto-CC'd on particular topics
but did not want to subscribe to llvm-bugs.  This description of the github
tracker means that would not be feasible, which is a step backwards.
I can anticipate a counter-argument which is that someone can easily search for
bugs with particular tags.  I claim that's not equivalent, because it
requires action on the part of the person to go look for things, and that
happens only when the person thinks of doing it.  Computers should automate the
tedious parts, like alerting the people who are interested in issues with a
particular tag.

--paulr

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint Stock Company Intel A/O
Registered legal address: Krylatsky Hills Business Park,
17 Krylatskaya Str., Bldg 4, Moscow 121614,
Russian Federation

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

> 2. Bug migration
> 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.
I made some research here and there are some caveats here and there,
unfortunately. The current list of questions / issues could be found
at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1byEcbsxF3pL-HGGd_K6axdh87tbcsuJK3Dp6ThxGjKA
– please comment.

-- 
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University

I'd like to add support for moving to github issues sooner rather than
later. Not having to manually create bugzilla user accounts both gives me
back some time in my day (not that important) and eliminates some of the
barriers for new contributors to file or contribute to bug reports (really
important).

My 2 cents to add (which I forgot at the round table) is that in general,
we probably do a poor job at triaging or acknowledging new bugs that are
being raised.  There are some exceptions though, for some components, where
a few people very actively triage and acknowledge new bug reports. I'd hate
to see this disappear. Therefore, I think it's important for people to be
able to continue to easily filter updates to bugs based on components
and/or keyword - so that the few that are currently motivated and perform a
lot of bug triage keep on doing so - by enabling a high signal-to-noise
ratio in github issue notifications for them.

I'm not sure if this is easy to do with github issues (I don't think I
saw
ideal solutions being described in the thread above). Maybe getting all
notification emails from all bugs, and then being able to filter it
client-side based on keywords will work well enough, I don't know.
I don't have a strong feel on whether we should block migration on having
good enough notification filtering, but I'd like to encourage enabling good
enough filtering sooner rather than later.
I'm afraid I don't really have enough experience with github issues to
know
what's possible with respect to client-side filtering.

Thanks,

Kristof

Op vr 25 okt. 2019 om 20:34 schreef Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at
sony.com>:
> > 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.
>
> Is that only new issues?  Or all activity?  If it's all activity on all
> issues, you're effectively auto-subscribing to all issues, and really
> nobody would want that.  Well, maybe, like, 3 people.
>
> > - 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 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).
>
> That last is really unfortunate.  Someone only interested in (say) LLDB
> issues would have to subscribe to all notifications and hope that there are
> enough breadcrumbs in a new issue to be able to do accurate email
> filtering.  It would be better to handle this in the bug tracker itself.
> Last year Kristof Beyls and I did a BoF on bug handling, and my memory is
> that a nonzero number of people were willing to be auto-CC'd on
particular
> topics but did not want to subscribe to llvm-bugs.  This description of the
> github tracker means that would not be feasible, which is a step backwards.
> I can anticipate a counter-argument which is that someone can easily
> search for bugs with particular tags.  I claim that's not equivalent,
> because it requires action on the part of the person to go look for things,
> and that happens only when the person thinks of doing it.  Computers should
> automate the tedious parts, like alerting the people who are interested in
> issues with a particular tag.
>
> --paulr
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191028/41ca6af6/attachment.html>

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 19:35, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > - 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 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).
>
> That last is really unfortunate.  Someone only interested in (say) LLDB
> issues would have to subscribe to all notifications and hope that there are
> enough breadcrumbs in a new issue to be able to do accurate email
> filtering.  It would be better to handle this in the bug tracker itself.
> Last year Kristof Beyls and I did a BoF on bug handling, and my memory is
> that a nonzero number of people were willing to be auto-CC'd on
particular
> topics but did not want to subscribe to llvm-bugs.  This description of the
> github tracker means that would not be feasible, which is a step backwards.
> I can anticipate a counter-argument which is that someone can easily
> search for bugs with particular tags.  I claim that's not equivalent,
> because it requires action on the part of the person to go look for things,
> and that happens only when the person thinks of doing it.  Computers should
> automate the tedious parts, like alerting the people who are interested in
> issues with a particular tag.
>
> --paulr
>
+1. I'm very interested in being automatically subscribed to issues in a
very limited set of tools. I'm currently auto-subscribed on the
corresponding bugzilla components and actively look at any new issues on
those tools, usually within 24 hours, even if I don't respond to them all.
I would be unlikely to remember to refresh a search anywhere near as
frequently, and I've found getting my emails to filter correctly to be
easier said than done. I don't think it's a blocker to migration
necessarily, especially if the majority of people support migration (I
personally am ambivalent, aside from this point), but I do think this
workflow should be a priority in resolving.

James
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191028/5cc49556/attachment.html>

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.
> 
> 
> 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>'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.
> 
I think we need a gap between when we turn on issues and when we tell people to
start using it, so that we can get some kind of notification system in place.
I think this may also address some concerns people have had with this proposal.

What about if we turn issues on in 1 week and then only start telling people
to use it for new bugs once we have a decent notification system working?
> 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.
Here are my suggestions for the minimal set of tags:

+ 1 per LLVM backend
+ 1 per top-level directory in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project

I think if we start here we can create more specialized tags as
GitHub issues gets more traffic and we have more experience using it.

-Tom
> 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> 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
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

> Here are my suggestions for the minimal set of tags:
>
> + 1 per LLVM backend
> + 1 per top-level directory in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
>
> I think if we start here we can create more specialized tags as
> GitHub issues gets more traffic and we have more experience using it.
The google doc I created contains the slightly cleaned list of current
components. It could be used as a good starting point for defining a
list of tags.

-- 
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University

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?

-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>'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> 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
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:21 PM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev
<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?

~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>'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> 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
> > 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

Hi,




On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:21 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <
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.
>
Do we have a way for individuals to get individually automatically
subscribed on all the bugs created for a given tag?
Mailing-lists seem fairly rigid in terms of granularity with respect to
tags.

-- 
Mehdi




>
> What does everyone think about this?
>
> -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>'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> 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
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200130/ea9d90d6/attachment.html>

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 10:22 Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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?
>
Before disabling Bugzilla, I think there should be a way for those who
don't have/want github accounts to create/comment-on bug reports (maybe a
mailing list with a thread per bug?). Once that's done, I'm all for
switching to github.

Jacob
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200130/46d7e63b/attachment.html>