similar to: RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:21 PM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 10/24/2019 07:54 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: > > We held a round-table at the llvm dev conference about what other pieces of Github infrastructure we may want to use. This thread in particular is about switching to github issue tracking. Use of other parts of Github

Would it make sense to wait until 10.0.0 is released, in order to keep all the blockers in one place? On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:32 PM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 01/30/2020 10:24 AM, Aaron Ballman wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:21 PM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev > > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >

Hi, On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:21 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 10/24/2019 07:54 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: > > We held a round-table at the llvm dev conference about what other pieces > of Github infrastructure we may want to use. This thread in particular is > about switching to github issue tracking. Use of other parts

On 02/10/2020 07:40 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > On 01/30/2020 12:47 PM, David Major wrote: >> Would it make sense to wait until 10.0.0 is released, in order to keep all the blockers in one place? >> > > Yes, I think this makes sense, let's postpone until then. > Hi, 10.0.0-rc4 was just released, and I think we are at the point in the release cycle where it is safe to

My only concern is the ability to get auto-subscribed onto issues for specific tools (i.e. the setup I currently have). If that can be resolved in a satisfactory manner, then I'm all for this (although less than two weeks seems like a rather ambitious time to switch over...). If it can't, then I'd be opposed to switching at all. On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 19:07, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev

On 03/16/2020 07:53 AM, Aaron Ballman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:44 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On 02/10/2020 07:40 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: >>> On 01/30/2020 12:47 PM, David Major wrote: >>>> Would it make sense to wait until 10.0.0 is released, in order to keep all the blockers in one place?

On 03/16/2020 08:00 AM, James Henderson wrote: > > > On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 14:44, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > On 02/10/2020 07:40 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > > On 01/30/2020 12:47 PM, David Major wrote: > >> Would it make sense to wait until 10.0.0 is released, in order to

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

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019, Martin Storsjö via llvm-dev wrote: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: > >> We do not want to build supplementary notification systems to make github >> issues send additional emails that it is unable to send itself. We will >> only >> support what GitHub supports. That means: >> - You can subscribe to notification

On 03/16/2020 10:13 AM, Florian Hahn wrote: > Hi, > >> On Mar 16, 2020, at 14:43, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> I've also implemented a notification system using GitHub actions that will make >> it possible to subscribe to individual issue tags, so we would enable this on Monday

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

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 11:04, Philip Reames via cfe-dev < 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

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

On 4/21/20 7:00 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev 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.

On 04/24/2020 03:24 AM, Sam McCall wrote: > clangd's experience using github issues to track bugs (in a separate repo) has been very positive, and I'm glad you're pushing on this! > > Part of this has been that our issue tracker has been scoped to our subproject only, which is a scope that the tool works well for (on the user and developer side). > As such I don't

On 03/17/2020 06:39 AM, Roman Lebedev wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 4:35 PM Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 03/16/2020 11:09 PM, Roman Lebedev wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 6:07 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev >>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 03/16/2020 10:13 AM, Florian Hahn wrote:

On 03/16/2020 11:09 PM, Roman Lebedev wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 6:07 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On 03/16/2020 10:13 AM, Florian Hahn wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>>> On Mar 16, 2020, at 14:43, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

Since Bugzilla numbers are all under 50,000 (at least for now:), can't we simply bump the GitHub issue/pull request numbers to 50,000, and start from there? Then it would be easy to identify: < 50000 means Bugzilla, >= 50000 means GitHub. Now somebody's only gotta find a way to file 50000-200 bogus GitHub tickets. :) (Or ask GitHub support to bump the number synthetically.)

On 05/01/2020 01:40 PM, Wyatt Childers via llvm-dev wrote: > I agree with everything said here, to me this seems like the most sane option. It seems like this approach could also be tested at a smaller scale if there are concerns about deleting a repo, to see if there is any observable effect. > > While I haven't performed this particular trick on Github, based on my experience

Please can we shut down one of the two systems for new bugs ASAP? We've already had an instance of someone filing the same bug using both systems, with two different fixes being committed by two different people at the same time... On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 06:49, Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: