MyDeveloper Day via llvm-dev
2021-Dec-04 08:35 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Bugzilla migration is stopped again
How many issues are we talking about with circular dependencies? Small enough for us to fix by hand on a need to basis? At present the lack of bug tracker for 10 days is starting to be more painful than the 100% correctness of the data. My experience of multiple migrations to JIRA systems from various legacy bug trackers that this is an iterative processes at some point you say “That’s good enough” and you conclude that historical issues aren’t looked at enough to worry about it, as long as users can get back to the legacy system they can cross reference if necessary Once you open this up, most issues we tackle will be new issues created in GitHub. Time to move forward, ideally we should have done these kinds of migrations during the planning phase, but we didn’t and that’s a lesson learnt, but let’s finish up the migration as is. Move on in my view it looks good enough to use and you’ve done a good job but let’s not drag this out for 1% of bugs we might not look at much! My 2p worth MyDeveloperDay On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 at 00:19, Anton Korobeynikov via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Dear All, > > I hate to say this, but the migration was stopped again. Now it seems > that GitHub does not rewrite issue references properly during the > transfer (sick!). Let me show what the problem is exactly: > > Consider two issues: A and B, where A will reference B and B will > reference A. In our case this is used to model various relations like > "duplicates / is duplicated by", "blocks / is blocked by", "depends on > / required by". So, in bz archive A will reference B as #B and B > will reference #A. > > Now, let's migrate A. The references will be rewritten. #B => > bz-archive#B and #A => llvm-project#A. However, after migration of B > only one reference is rewritten llvm-project#A => #A, the bz-archive#B > link in the issue A will not be rewritten and therefore a dangling > reference will appear. > > For us this means that we will lose all links to duplicate issues, and > (more important!) to linked issues in the meta bugs. > > I informed GitHub about the bug and I am waiting for their answer. > > -- > With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov, > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20211204/8eca75f4/attachment.html>
Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev
2021-Dec-04 08:55 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Bugzilla migration is stopped again
> How many issues are we talking about with circular dependencies? Small enough for us to fix by hand on a need to basis? At present the lack of bug tracker for 10 days is starting to be more painful than the 100% correctness of the data.This affects: - All issues closed due to being duplicates - All meta bugs (including release-tracking ones) Maybe something else, but IMO the meta-bugs case is quite severe. Essentially we will lose all links from the meta-bug to the "downstream" bugs, or vice versa, or mixture depending on the relative order of migration of meta-bug and the dependees. I will be meeting with GitHub folks on Monday to see what are the solutions.> Time to move forward, ideally we should have done these kinds of migrations during the planning phase, but we didn’t and that’s a lesson learnt, but let’s finish up the migration as is. Move on in my view it looks good enough to use and you’ve done a good job but let’s not drag this out for 1% of bugs we might not look at much!Well. The thing is: we checked and found lots of issues and introduced many workarounds. I must admit that checking cyclic references after the migration was not in my checklist and I spotted this issue by accident. Ordinary references are migrated properly (both to source code and other issues) and this was checked. There was an assumption that basic github functionality would simply work. This was a mistake. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University