On 4/21/20 3:36 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 11:04, Philip Reames via cfe-dev
<cfe-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-...@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.
I used to think this was super important, but I've now been through a
couple of conversions which didn't provide a 1-to-1 mapping. It's
annoying for about 6 months, and after that, you basically forget it
happened. As long as old bugs are searchable in the new system, and you
can find the new ID from the old system, the exact identifier isn't as
important.
Anyways, this is all subjective and I'm certainty not volunteering to
work on this, so IMHO my own opinion doesn't really count. :)
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.
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> 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-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 12:31, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev
<llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@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-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
cfe-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
