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

Tom Stellard via llvm-dev
Wed, 22 Apr 2020 00:00:17 -0000

On 04/21/2020 03:36 PM, Richard Smith via llvm-dev
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 11:04, Philip Reames via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
>     +1 to James's take
>
>     I'd prefer simplicity of implementation over perfection here.
>
> If we end up with two different bug numbering systems, that's a problem
that we will be paying for for many years. It's worth some investment now to
avoid that problem. And it doesn't seem like it really requires much
investment.
>
> Here's another path we could take:
>
> 1) Fork the llvm repository to a private "bugs" repository.
Mirror the bugzilla issues there. Iterate until we're happy, as per
James's proposal.
> 2) Sync the forked repository to the llvm repository, delete the llvm
repository, rename "bugs" to "llvm", and make it public.
>
> Then we'll have the first N bugs in llvm-project/llvm being *exactly*
the bugzilla bugs, and we'll have excised the existing github issues that we
want to pretend never existed anyway.
>
>
> I think we've missed an important step in the planning here: we've
not agreed on a set of goals for the transition. Here are mine:
>
>  * We end up with one single issue tracking system containing all issues,
both old and new, both open and closed.
>  * All links and references to existing bugs still work.
>  * We have a single bug numbering system covering all bugs, and old bugs
retain their numbers.

Why are the bug numbers important?  Could you help give some example use cases
that require having
a non-intersecting set of bug numbers for bugzilla bugs and github issues?

-Tom


>
> It sounds like we don't all agree that the last point is important, but
if we can achieve it without any significant additional cost, why not do so?
>
>     Philip
>
>     On 4/20/20 4:08 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote:
>>     In a previous discussion, one other suggestion had been to migrate
all the bugzilla bugs to a separate initially-private "bug archive"
repository in github. This has a few benefits:
>>     1. If the migration is messed up, the repo can be deleted, and the
process run again, until we get a result we like.
>>     2. The numbering can be fully-controlled.
>>     Once the bugs are migrated to /some/ github repository, individual
issues can then be "moved" between repositories, and github will
redirect from the movefrom-repository's bug to the target repository's
bug.
>>
>>     We could also just have llvm.org/PR###
<http://llvm.org/PR#%23%23> be the url only for legacy bugzilla issue
numbers -- and have it use a file listing the mappings of bugzilla id ->
github id to generate the redirects. (GCC just did this recently for svn
revision number redirections,
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-April/232030.html).
>>
>>     Then we could introduce a new naming scheme for github issue
shortlinks.
>>
>>     On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:50 PM Richard Smith via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
>>
>>         On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 12:31, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
>>
>>             Hi,
>>
>>             I wanted to continue discussing the plan to migrate from
Bugzilla to Github.
>>             It was suggested that I start a new thread and give a
summary of the proposal
>>             and what has changed since it was originally proposed in
October.
>>
>>             == Here is the original proposal:
>>
>>
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/136162.html
>>
>>             == What has changed:
>>
>>             * You will be able to subscribe to notifications for a
specific issue
>>               labels.  We have a proof of concept notification system
using github actions
>>               that will be used for this.
>>
>>             * Emails will be sent to llvm-bugs when issues are opened
or closed.
>>
>>             * We have the initial list of labels:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/labels
>>
>>             == Remaining issue:
>>
>>             * There is one remaining issue that I don't feel we
have consensus on,
>>             and that is what to do with bugs in the existing bugzilla.
Here are some options
>>             that we have discussed:
>>
>>             1. Switch to GitHub issues for new bugs only.  Bugs filed
in bugzilla that are
>>             still active will be updated there until they are closed.
This means that over
>>             time the number of active bugs in bugzilla will slowly
decrease as bugs are closed
>>             out.  Then at some point in the future, all of the bugs
from bugzilla will be archived
>>             into their own GitHub repository that is separate from the
llvm-project repo.
>>
>>             2. Same as 1, but also create a migration script that would
allow anyone to
>>             manually migrate an active bug from bugzilla to a GitHub
issue in the llvm-project
>>             repo.  The intention with this script is that it would be
used to migrate high-traffic
>>             or important bugs from bugzilla to GitHub to help increase
the visibility of the bug.
>>             This would not be used for mass migration of all the bugs.
>>
>>             3. Do a mass bug migration from bugzilla to GitHub and
enable GitHub issues at the same time.
>>             Closed or inactive bugs would be archived into their own
GitHub repository, and active bugs
>>             would be migrated to the llvm-project repo.
>>
>>
>>         Can we preserve the existing bug numbers if we migrate this
way? There are lots of references to "PRxxxxx" in checked in LLVM
artifacts and elsewhere in the world, as well as links to llvm.org/PRxxxxx
<http://llvm.org/PRxxxxx>, and if we can preserve all the issue numbers
this would ease the transition pain substantially.
>>
>>
>>             The key difference between proposal 1,2 and 3, is when bugs
will be archived from bugzilla
>>             to GitHub.  Delaying the archiving of bugs (proposals 1 and
2) means that we can migrate
>>             to GitHub issues sooner (within 1-2 weeks), whereas trying
to archive bugs during the
>>             transition (proposal 3) will delay the transition for a
while (likely several months)
>>             while we evaluate the various solutions for moving bugs
from bugzilla to GitHub.
>>
>>
>>             The original proposal was to do 1 or 2, however there were
some concerns raised on the list
>>             that having 2 different places to search for bugs for some
period of time would
>>             be very inconvenient.  So, I would like to restart this
discussion and hopefully we can