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

Richard Smith via llvm-dev
Wed, 22 Apr 2020 01:50:55 -0000

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 17:00, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> 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?


These numbers appear all over our codebase. PR[0-9] appears 3592 times in
Clang testcases, plus 45 times in Clang source code and 119 times more as
the file names of Clang testcases. If we add inconvenience to looking up
all of those, that makes maintenance harder each time someone wants to look
one of those up. (That's probably a ~weekly occurrence for me.)

Also, bug numbers appear in other bugs. I would assume we're not going to
be able to reliably figure out which numbers appearing in a bug are bug
numbers during the import process, so those numbers will persist into the
github issues world.

(In addition, I'm sure multiple groups have their own tracking systems, web
pages, documentation, etc. that contain references to LLVM PR numbers. But
maybe we shouldn't worry too much about that.)

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

It makes conversing about bug numbers more difficult if you need to clarify
which system you're talking about. As a minor example, we'd have to
avoid
saying "PR" for the new system in order to avoid confusion, and get
used to
some new terminology, and probably not use "bug 1234" to describe
either
system, because that would be ambiguous. None of these individual factors
seems like a huge disruption, but they all seem like inconvenience
we should prefer to avoid if possible.

-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>
> <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
> >>             come to some kind of conclusion about the best way
forward.
> >>
> >>             Thanks,
> >>             Tom
> >>
> >>             _______________________________________________
> >>             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
> >>
> >>         _______________________________________________
> >>         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
> >>
> >>
> >>     _______________________________________________
> >>     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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200421/aaa28075/attachment-0001.html>