With the CfP out now, I'm actually motivated to organize a BoF on this topic at the October dev meeting. I haven't put much thought in yet, but think it'd be awesome if we could at least make substantial progress on getting to a bug-closing process/protocol. As one of the people creating bugzilla accounts for new people, I see multiple people requesting an account every day, intending to report a bug for the first time. I haven't analyzed the statistics, but I fear the experience for those first-time contributors isn't always great. I'd be very happy to collaborate on organizing such a BoF. Please let me know if any of you are interested in co-organizing such a BoF. Thanks! Kristof Op do 21 jun. 2018 om 17:19 schreef Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:> I'm just an armchair critic with a lot of opinions on what other people > should do, and not enough willpower to pick one project and make it happen. > :) > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:57 AM <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > >> So Reid, you'll be running a BoF on this at the October dev meeting? J >> >> --paulr >> >> >> >> *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of *Reid >> Kleckner via llvm-dev >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 20, 2018 6:12 PM >> *To:* JVApen at gmail.com >> *Cc:* llvm-dev >> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] Bug-closing protocol >> >> >> >> Thanks for taking the time to report bugs! I think you are responsible >> for filing the most high-quality clang-cl bugs. >> >> >> >> I hope our bug responses continue to be helpful and informative, but >> things do often get lost in translation. =/ >> >> >> >> I also think there's a lot we could do to improve our bug hygiene and >> processes as a community. The way our bugzilla is configured, pinging bugs >> does not sent email to llvm-bugs@, so if an issue is not immediately >> triaged within a week after filing it, it's very unlikely that anyone will >> ever find it. As a community, we could set up rotations to triage stale >> bugs, but this takes resources, commitments, and planning. It's eminently >> doable, but it's not something that any one person or team of contributors >> can do on their own, so people tend to shy away from disturbing established >> processes. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:33 PM JVApen via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> First of all, I'm sorry to create a separate thread on the mailing list, >> I have disabled all mails from it. >> >> >> >> I just read the thread about the bug closing protocol thanks to >> LLVMWeekly. ( >> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-June/123955.html) >> >> >> >> I've noticed a lot of reactions from people involved with the solving >> part of the bugs. So I'm putting out the loggers point of view. (Or at >> least mine) >> >> >> >> I'm totally in favor of getting relevant information when a bug gets >> closed. Over the last couple of years, I've logged several bugs, of which a >> couple of clang-cl compatibility bugs where put to invalid. >> >> Having a good explanation on why this is closed helped me a lot in >> manually fixing several thousand of occurrences of that pattern. Both >> mentally to not give up, as by understanding the problem. >> >> Please keep doing so! >> >> >> >> However, from my point of view, this is the tip of an iceberg. Out of >> about 50 bugs I've logged on a variety of modules, only half reached an end >> state. (Either fixed or invalid/won't fix). >> >> >> >> My problem also lies in that other half, those bugs that have been open >> for more than 2 weeks (upto 5 years). Cause if you don't get a reaction >> within those 2 weeks, the chances of getting a reaction drop a lot. (Or if >> reactions suddenly stop) >> >> >> >> When a bug goes into such a state, you are lost as a bug logger. It took >> me a couple of years getting our companies code compiling with clang-cl >> (linking is far future), working around obscure bugs of which I still don't >> know if you (as community/maintainer) agree if it is a bug. >> >> >> >> To make matters worse, every time a component gets upgraded (internal >> library, extrernal library or even the tool-chain, including clang), there >> is a high probability of firefighting issues. Only when that fails, I spent >> time logging a bug (as creduce doesn't work on my system). >> >> >> >> In the best case scenario, I get an event like this weekend that states: >> merged. >> >> This means: I'm certain I'll have a fix in the future. Unfortunately, it >> is only available in the next official release, which will happen in >> September. And with a bit of luck, you can find back what the actual >> revision is, to see the diff. So for now, the code is ifdef-ed out for >> clang as it won't link anyhow. >> >> >> >> In conclusion: I really respect the work you do, this puts the standard >> on a high level. Taking the time to inform the bug logger is a must have. >> However, it is not the only place were we as bug loggers are lacking >> information. >> >> >> >> JVApen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://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/20180703/ce050c28/attachment-0001.html>
Count me in. I'll trust the other people in the room to keep me from getting too bureaucratic about it. ☺ We should at least write *something* down; people don't Just Know these kinds of things, especially given how the project tends to attract students. --paulr From: Kristof Beyls [mailto:kristof.beyls at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 7:56 AM To: rnk at google.com Cc: Robinson, Paul; llvm-dev; JVApen at gmail.com; Tanya Lattner Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Bug-closing protocol With the CfP out now, I'm actually motivated to organize a BoF on this topic at the October dev meeting. I haven't put much thought in yet, but think it'd be awesome if we could at least make substantial progress on getting to a bug-closing process/protocol. As one of the people creating bugzilla accounts for new people, I see multiple people requesting an account every day, intending to report a bug for the first time. I haven't analyzed the statistics, but I fear the experience for those first-time contributors isn't always great. I'd be very happy to collaborate on organizing such a BoF. Please let me know if any of you are interested in co-organizing such a BoF. Thanks! Kristof Op do 21 jun. 2018 om 17:19 schreef Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>: I'm just an armchair critic with a lot of opinions on what other people should do, and not enough willpower to pick one project and make it happen. :) On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:57 AM <paul.robinson at sony.com<mailto:paul.robinson at sony.com>> wrote: So Reid, you'll be running a BoF on this at the October dev meeting? ☺ --paulr From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>] On Behalf Of Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 6:12 PM To: JVApen at gmail.com<mailto:JVApen at gmail.com> Cc: llvm-dev Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Bug-closing protocol Thanks for taking the time to report bugs! I think you are responsible for filing the most high-quality clang-cl bugs. I hope our bug responses continue to be helpful and informative, but things do often get lost in translation. =/ I also think there's a lot we could do to improve our bug hygiene and processes as a community. The way our bugzilla is configured, pinging bugs does not sent email to llvm-bugs@, so if an issue is not immediately triaged within a week after filing it, it's very unlikely that anyone will ever find it. As a community, we could set up rotations to triage stale bugs, but this takes resources, commitments, and planning. It's eminently doable, but it's not something that any one person or team of contributors can do on their own, so people tend to shy away from disturbing established processes. On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:33 PM JVApen via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Hi all, First of all, I'm sorry to create a separate thread on the mailing list, I have disabled all mails from it. I just read the thread about the bug closing protocol thanks to LLVMWeekly. (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-June/123955.html) I've noticed a lot of reactions from people involved with the solving part of the bugs. So I'm putting out the loggers point of view. (Or at least mine) I'm totally in favor of getting relevant information when a bug gets closed. Over the last couple of years, I've logged several bugs, of which a couple of clang-cl compatibility bugs where put to invalid. Having a good explanation on why this is closed helped me a lot in manually fixing several thousand of occurrences of that pattern. Both mentally to not give up, as by understanding the problem. Please keep doing so! However, from my point of view, this is the tip of an iceberg. Out of about 50 bugs I've logged on a variety of modules, only half reached an end state. (Either fixed or invalid/won't fix). My problem also lies in that other half, those bugs that have been open for more than 2 weeks (upto 5 years). Cause if you don't get a reaction within those 2 weeks, the chances of getting a reaction drop a lot. (Or if reactions suddenly stop) When a bug goes into such a state, you are lost as a bug logger. It took me a couple of years getting our companies code compiling with clang-cl (linking is far future), working around obscure bugs of which I still don't know if you (as community/maintainer) agree if it is a bug. To make matters worse, every time a component gets upgraded (internal library, extrernal library or even the tool-chain, including clang), there is a high probability of firefighting issues. Only when that fails, I spent time logging a bug (as creduce doesn't work on my system). In the best case scenario, I get an event like this weekend that states: merged. This means: I'm certain I'll have a fix in the future. Unfortunately, it is only available in the next official release, which will happen in September. And with a bit of luck, you can find back what the actual revision is, to see the diff. So for now, the code is ifdef-ed out for clang as it won't link anyhow. In conclusion: I really respect the work you do, this puts the standard on a high level. Taking the time to inform the bug logger is a must have. However, it is not the only place were we as bug loggers are lacking information. JVApen _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> http://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/20180703/f06e2bfc/attachment.html>
I would love to be a part of the discussion. I have been wanting to do more with our bugzilla for years but have never had time. -Tanya> On Jul 3, 2018, at 11:24 AM, <paul.robinson at sony.com> <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > > Count me in. I'll trust the other people in the room to keep me from getting too bureaucratic about it. J > We should at least write *something* down; people don't Just Know these kinds of things, especially given how the project tends to attract students. > --paulr > > From: Kristof Beyls [mailto:kristof.beyls at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 7:56 AM > To: rnk at google.com > Cc: Robinson, Paul; llvm-dev; JVApen at gmail.com; Tanya Lattner > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Bug-closing protocol > > With the CfP out now, I'm actually motivated to organize a BoF on this topic at the October dev meeting. > I haven't put much thought in yet, but think it'd be awesome if we could at least make substantial progress on getting to a bug-closing process/protocol. > As one of the people creating bugzilla accounts for new people, I see multiple people requesting an account every day, intending to report a bug for the first time. > I haven't analyzed the statistics, but I fear the experience for those first-time contributors isn't always great. > > I'd be very happy to collaborate on organizing such a BoF. > Please let me know if any of you are interested in co-organizing such a BoF. > > Thanks! > > Kristof > > > > > Op do 21 jun. 2018 om 17:19 schreef Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > I'm just an armchair critic with a lot of opinions on what other people should do, and not enough willpower to pick one project and make it happen. :) > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:57 AM <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > So Reid, you'll be running a BoF on this at the October dev meeting? J > --paulr > > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 6:12 PM > To: JVApen at gmail.com > Cc: llvm-dev > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Bug-closing protocol > > Thanks for taking the time to report bugs! I think you are responsible for filing the most high-quality clang-cl bugs. > > I hope our bug responses continue to be helpful and informative, but things do often get lost in translation. =/ > > I also think there's a lot we could do to improve our bug hygiene and processes as a community. The way our bugzilla is configured, pinging bugs does not sent email to llvm-bugs@, so if an issue is not immediately triaged within a week after filing it, it's very unlikely that anyone will ever find it. As a community, we could set up rotations to triage stale bugs, but this takes resources, commitments, and planning. It's eminently doable, but it's not something that any one person or team of contributors can do on their own, so people tend to shy away from disturbing established processes. > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:33 PM JVApen via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > First of all, I'm sorry to create a separate thread on the mailing list, I have disabled all mails from it. > > I just read the thread about the bug closing protocol thanks to LLVMWeekly. (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-June/123955.html) > > I've noticed a lot of reactions from people involved with the solving part of the bugs. So I'm putting out the loggers point of view. (Or at least mine) > > I'm totally in favor of getting relevant information when a bug gets closed. Over the last couple of years, I've logged several bugs, of which a couple of clang-cl compatibility bugs where put to invalid. > Having a good explanation on why this is closed helped me a lot in manually fixing several thousand of occurrences of that pattern. Both mentally to not give up, as by understanding the problem. > Please keep doing so! > > However, from my point of view, this is the tip of an iceberg. Out of about 50 bugs I've logged on a variety of modules, only half reached an end state. (Either fixed or invalid/won't fix). > > My problem also lies in that other half, those bugs that have been open for more than 2 weeks (upto 5 years). Cause if you don't get a reaction within those 2 weeks, the chances of getting a reaction drop a lot. (Or if reactions suddenly stop) > > When a bug goes into such a state, you are lost as a bug logger. It took me a couple of years getting our companies code compiling with clang-cl (linking is far future), working around obscure bugs of which I still don't know if you (as community/maintainer) agree if it is a bug. > > To make matters worse, every time a component gets upgraded (internal library, extrernal library or even the tool-chain, including clang), there is a high probability of firefighting issues. Only when that fails, I spent time logging a bug (as creduce doesn't work on my system). > > In the best case scenario, I get an event like this weekend that states: merged. > This means: I'm certain I'll have a fix in the future. Unfortunately, it is only available in the next official release, which will happen in September. And with a bit of luck, you can find back what the actual revision is, to see the diff. So for now, the code is ifdef-ed out for clang as it won't link anyhow. > > In conclusion: I really respect the work you do, this puts the standard on a high level. Taking the time to inform the bug logger is a must have. However, it is not the only place were we as bug loggers are lacking information. > > JVApen > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://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/20180703/25f56684/attachment-0001.html>