llvm dev - Jan 2020 - [cfe-dev] RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues

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 01/30/2020 10:48 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:21 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto: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.
> 
When I said cc lists, I really meant auto-subscribe lists, I didn't mean
that we would start sending issue emails to mailing lists.
>From what I can tell, there are a couple different ways to auto-subscribe
people using github actions.  I think the most simple would be to use
the assignee field, but I think it's also possible by @ mentioning people
directly in a comment or @ mentioning teams.

I was planning to experiment more with this over the next few days.

-Tom




> -- 
> 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>
<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> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>     https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>

> 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.
No, all notifications are essentially all-or-nothing thing. Github
folks knows about this issue and planned to work on them, but there
was no ETA on this.

-- 
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200130/788fb194/attachment.html>

My only concern is the ability to get auto-subscribed onto issues for
specific tools (i.e. the setup I currently have). If that can be resolved
in a satisfactory manner, then I'm all for this (although less than two
weeks seems like a rather ambitious time to switch over...). If it can't,
then I'd be opposed to switching at all.

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 19:07, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 01/30/2020 10:48 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:21 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto: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.
> >
>
> When I said cc lists, I really meant auto-subscribe lists, I didn't
mean
> that we would start sending issue emails to mailing lists.
>
> From what I can tell, there are a couple different ways to auto-subscribe
> people using github actions.  I think the most simple would be to use
> the assignee field, but I think it's also possible by @ mentioning
people
> directly in a comment or @ mentioning teams.
>
> I was planning to experiment more with this over the next few days.
>
> -Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > 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> <
> 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> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> >     https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-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/20200131/5fb4e145/attachment.html>