llvm dev - Nov 2021 - IMPORTANT: LLVM Bugzilla migration

> If we can attribute it to an anonymous entity, e.g. by putting
"Anonymous LLVM Contributor 123 wrote:" at the top of a comment by
llvmbot, at least readers can understand whether two comments on a bug are from
the same person or from different people, for example. Can we at least do
something like that?
We do this for issues. They are marked as submitted by "LLVM Bugzilla
Contributor".
> And, if such a problem exists, I think we ought to address that problem
before migration.
They had more than half a year to submit a survey and received
multiple notifications. We are not going to delay the migration due to
this.
> I very much doubt it's true that everyone who cares will have filled it
out already. I mean, just speaking for myself...I think I filled out the form?
But maybe I only intended to, but forgot to get around to it? Who knows.
Assuming I actually did, I'm certain there are more people in the same
situation who actually did _not_.
Well, you can simply go and submit it once again. We will certainly
take care of dups.
> Some other questions that pop into my mind:
Great! Thanks for the questions. Probably they should have asked 2
years ago. You will be able to check the results by yourself after the
migration.

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

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 3:36 PM Anton Korobeynikov <anton at
korobeynikov.info>
wrote:
> > If we can attribute it to an anonymous entity, e.g. by putting
> "Anonymous LLVM Contributor 123 wrote:" at the top of a comment
by llvmbot,
> at least readers can understand whether two comments on a bug are from the
> same person or from different people, for example. Can we at least do
> something like that?
> We do this for issues. They are marked as submitted by "LLVM Bugzilla
> Contributor".
>
As I said, the purpose would be to allow disambiguating multiple anonymous
contributors, e.g. by suffixing a unique number to each anonymous
contributor. The reply misses that point.
> And, if such a problem exists, I think we ought to address that problem
> before migration.
> They had more than half a year to submit a survey and received
> multiple notifications. We are not going to delay the migration due to
> this.

My understanding from what you said is that you have sent a single
notification to each user back in April. (Plus a mailing list post, before
that, in March.) If that is enough to capture most active users, great! But
it sounds like it was not. You can't blame the users if a large percentage
of them have a problem. That points to a problem in the process, not the
people.
> Some other questions that pop into my mind:
> Great! Thanks for the questions. Probably they should have asked 2
> years ago. You will be able to check the results by yourself after the
> migration.

It feels to me like you're being intentionally disingenuous here, and that
makes me sad. My questions are about the migration plan/process/decisions *as
it is now finally implemented*, not the initial ideas for migration from
2019. I don't think that a request that the final plan be written down and
reviewable by others is out-of-line or unexpected.

Until very recently, it seemed like wasn't even clear that a migration
would be feasible under the proposed scheme at all, and that the tooling
was still under active development. Now that it's clear that it can be done
(which is great news!), the next step I expected was a detailed writeup of
the final characteristics of the implementation, and what things are
expected to look like afterwards. Instead, at basically the first point
where it's known that this is actually feasible, it's too late to ask
any
questions? There's no documentation of what's been implemented? No
description even of what users should expect after migration? I do not
understand this.

Certainly it's possible for a project to turn out successfully without a
written design, documentation, or review. But isn't that unnecessarily
risky?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20211122/9877cc14/attachment.html>

On 2021-11-22, Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev wrote:
>> If we can attribute it to an anonymous entity, e.g. by putting
"Anonymous LLVM Contributor 123 wrote:" at the top of a comment by
llvmbot, at least readers can understand whether two comments on a bug are from
the same person or from different people, for example. Can we at least do
something like that?
>We do this for issues. They are marked as submitted by "LLVM Bugzilla
>Contributor".
>
>> And, if such a problem exists, I think we ought to address that problem
before migration.
>They had more than half a year to submit a survey and received
>multiple notifications. We are not going to delay the migration due to
>this.
>
>> I very much doubt it's true that everyone who cares will have
filled it out already. I mean, just speaking for myself...I think I filled out
the form? But maybe I only intended to, but forgot to get around to it? Who
knows. Assuming I actually did, I'm certain there are more people in the
same situation who actually did _not_.
>Well, you can simply go and submit it once again. We will certainly
>take care of dups.
>
>> Some other questions that pop into my mind:
>Great! Thanks for the questions. Probably they should have asked 2
>years ago. You will be able to check the results by yourself after the
>migration.
>
Thank for all your hard work! This issue tracker system has been a pain
for so many people for years.

I think having a small-scale review of the post-migration github
repository can be very useful. It can be 1% (or larger?) of the current
~53000 issues. People will have some idea what the repository will look
like, e.g. what portion of issues are anonymous.
> James: I imagine it'd be pretty easy for folks to forget that they
didn't fill out the sheet, since there's no way to verify whether you
did or not."
Agree. Deep Majumder asked the requestion in the thread. A colleague of
mine asked the same question.

I just visited the Bugzilla / GitHub username mapping form and re-submitted my
mapping
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdUSCK-Rgl9H-8Ua0yat1KL1yELChxkJk15SfhnwPnIexTQUw/viewform
There is no email confirmation.

A contributor may have multiple email addresses. They may not submit
their bugzilla email address or they may miss the notification to their
not-regularly-used email address (possible due to closed registration for
a long time).

Yesterday I read
https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2021-11-18-relicensing-update/ and notified
3 friends who were on the long-tail spreadsheet. Two of them are still
contributing and told me that they missed the email notification because they
had changed their primary email address. I am going to ask them whether
they have submitted the mapping form...


I think bugs.llvm.org has a local patch to display the banner:
"New user self-registration is disabled due to spam. For an account please
email bugs-admin at lists.llvm.org with your e-mail address and full name."

Could the banner be toggled a bit to remind the user and show the Bugzilla /
GitHub usernam mapping if submitted?