On 4/21/20 6:50 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 17:00, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev
<llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@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-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>
<mailto: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.
>
> 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.
Why are the bug numbers important?
These numbers appear all over our codebase. PR[0-9] appears 3592 times
in Clang testcases, plus 45 times in Clang source code and 119 times
more as the file names of Clang testcases. If we add inconvenience to
looking up all of those, that makes maintenance harder each time
someone wants to look one of those up. (That's probably a ~weekly
occurrence for me.)
For this use case, a simple script and bulk change to update references
in source repo means the numbering can change arbitrarily. ~4k small
mechanical changes is just not that much to review for a one time update
assuming you trust the number remapping script and are just looking for
overly aggressive regex matches.
(I don't have any quick fixes for your other mentioned cases.)
Also, bug numbers appear in other bugs. I would assume we're not going
to be able to reliably figure out which numbers appearing in a bug are
bug numbers during the import process, so those numbers will persist
into the github issues world.
(In addition, I'm sure multiple groups have their own tracking
systems, web pages, documentation, etc. that contain references to
LLVM PR numbers. But maybe we shouldn't worry too much about that.)
Could you help give some example use cases that require having
a non-intersecting set of bug numbers for bugzilla bugs and github
issues?
It makes conversing about bug numbers more difficult if you need to
clarify which system you're talking about. As a minor example, we'd
have to avoid saying "PR" for the new system in order to avoid
confusion, and get used to some new terminology, and probably not use
"bug 1234" to describe either system, because that would be ambiguous.
None of these individual factors seems like a huge disruption, but
they all seem like inconvenience we should prefer to avoid if possible.
-Tom
>
> 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> <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>
<mailto: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>
<mailto: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>
<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>
<mailto: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>
<mailto: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>
<mailto: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>
<mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>>
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-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
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
