llvm dev - Nov 2021 - IMPORTANT: LLVM Bugzilla migration

Hello James,
> Could we please make all the existing tools components in bugzillas into
their own labels, rather than some arbitrary distinction between them (assuming
that the tool still exists in LLVM at least)? For instance, the following tools
don't have their own label, but really should:
>
> 1) llvm-cxxfilt (corresponds to the llvm-c++filt component): should be
tools:llvm-cxxfilt.
> 2) llvm-mca: should be tools:llvm-mca.
We do have the label mapping document that was created and agreed
during one of the roundtables and reviewed further by the community.
The mapping labels were created according to that document.
> Also, I noticed a few of these tools:*** labels merged tool names, which is
fine, since the tools in question are closely related. However, in some cases,
the names are both prefixed with "llvm-" (e.g.
"tools:llvm-ar/llvm-ranlib") and in others they aren't (e.g.
"tools:llvm-objcopy/strip"). Could we please make sure all such
instances are standardised to one form or the other (I don't care that much
which, but have a slight preference for both having the "llvm-"
prefix)?
Thanks for the comments. The changes in label names / representation
could be done post-migration as necessary.


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

Okay, but it's quite possible people missed things on their first pass
(myself included, since I thought I at least reviewed the document).

Is there a technical reason these can't be added/changed now before
migration?

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 08:42, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at
korobeynikov.info>
wrote:
> Hello James,
>
> > Could we please make all the existing tools components in bugzillas
into
> their own labels, rather than some arbitrary distinction between them
> (assuming that the tool still exists in LLVM at least)? For instance, the
> following tools don't have their own label, but really should:
> >
> > 1) llvm-cxxfilt (corresponds to the llvm-c++filt component): should be
> tools:llvm-cxxfilt.
> > 2) llvm-mca: should be tools:llvm-mca.
> We do have the label mapping document that was created and agreed
> during one of the roundtables and reviewed further by the community.
> The mapping labels were created according to that document.
>
> > Also, I noticed a few of these tools:*** labels merged tool names,
which
> is fine, since the tools in question are closely related. However, in some
> cases, the names are both prefixed with "llvm-" (e.g.
> "tools:llvm-ar/llvm-ranlib") and in others they aren't (e.g.
> "tools:llvm-objcopy/strip"). Could we please make sure all such
instances
> are standardised to one form or the other (I don't care that much
which,
> but have a slight preference for both having the "llvm-" prefix)?
> Thanks for the comments. The changes in label names / representation
> could be done post-migration as necessary.
>
>
> --
> 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/20211124/ea4a2b2e/attachment-0001.html>