llvm dev - Dec 2021 - [Openmp-dev] Bugzilla migration is stopped again

Is it really impossible to just completely remove all the current
issues and PR's in a repository and reset the counter, so that none of
this remapping is necessary in the first place?

Alternatively, is it really impossible to, instead of moving issues,
ask github to just move the releases into that new repository and then
swap those two repositories (forks, stars, clones, etc.)?

I think all these problems are only because of the remapping, which
will be problematic regardless, because the in-source mentions aren't
getting rewritten, so there *will* be confusion regardless of whether
github succeeds in moving issues.

Roman

On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 11:56 AM Anton Korobeynikov via Openmp-dev
<openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> > To clarify, will those bz-archive#B references just not look as nice,
or do they not work at all? It was my understanding that bz-archive#B will
redirect to llvm-project#B2, in which case this doesn't seem overly
problematic.
> They will be just text. No redirect.
>
> --
> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
> _______________________________________________
> Openmp-dev mailing list
> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev

> Is it really impossible to just completely remove all the current
> issues and PR's in a repository and reset the counter, so that none of
> this remapping is necessary in the first place?
I asked this question many times at different levels. As far as I was
told – yes. The bulk import could only happen to the empty repo. If
you know how it could be done in another way – please let us know.
> Alternatively, is it really impossible to, instead of moving issues,
> ask github to just move the releases into that new repository and then
> swap those two repositories (forks, stars, clones, etc.)?
This is what we asked as well!. The answer was "there is no way".
Maybe there is a way, but it would require some significant
engineering effort from their side (e.g. additional development), so
our request was refused.
> I think all these problems are only because of the remapping, which
> will be problematic regardless, because the in-source mentions aren't
> getting rewritten, so there *will* be confusion regardless of whether
> github succeeds in moving issues.
Right. Do you have an idea how we can move forward?

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