Re: [llvm-dev] Proposal for an alternative bugtracking workflow

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: [llvm-dev] Proposal for an alternative bugtracking workflow

David Blaikie via cfe-dev
(cross-posting from llvm-dev in hopes to potentially get more responses, see [2] for the original thread and sorry if you're not interested and getting this twice)

Hi LLVM community,

As discussed earlier, we in the clangd land feel that buganizer does not address the clangd's needs as a bug-tracking system.

In our previous attempt to raise this on llvm-dev [1] we shared our idea to put the clangd issue tracker on GitHub. The participants raised multiple concerns, including the migration costs, whether GitHub is the right choice as an issue tracker, whether moving issues for clangd only will result in unwanted community fragmentation and others

These are all valid concerns, but a big portion of the thread was focused on migration of the existing bugs, community fragmentation issues, etc.
We feel it would also be useful to ask a more focused question on whether using the proposed **workflow** of tracking issues in multiple GitHub projects is a good fit for LLVM, ignoring the migration costs and such. Please note we're not proposing to migrate from Bugzilla right away or saying that's the only way to go forward with LLVM issue tracking, we merely want to understand what the community thinks about the proposed workflow and *potential* advantages and disadvantages of using it. 

To reiterate, our proposal was to create a repository for each of the LLVM subprojects under the official LLVM GitHub account, e.g.
This repository would be run by the part of the community working on that project and would host the issue tracker for the project. The existing '' repository will be used to solely host the code, it will not have an issue tracker associated with it. 

Do you think this workflow would be a good fit for tracking bugs in LLVM?

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:52 PM Ilya Biryukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
See responses inline.

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:31 AM James Y Knight <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, it's not really critical for us _now_, because we have not switched to github issues. And I can't really see any possibility of that happening in the short-term, either.
Sure, the purpose of this thread was to explore what kind of issue we might run into if that happens, not trying to build consensus/sell the move to GitHub.

Even once we do decide we want to move that way -- which we haven't yet even done -- it'll be a long road to making it happen, and I suspect there's many more critical missing features that we'll discover along the way.

IMO, the best thing to focus on for fixing issue tracking in the short term, would be to resolve the most pressing issue in our bugzilla installation: that users cannot file bugs, because they'll get discouraged at step #1: creating an account.  
The best thing there is to figure out how to support 'login with github' (
A next-best-thing, since that seems a lot more difficult than it should be, would be to figure out how to re-enable account creation.

Possibly the spam overload was a temporary thing, and we can just re-enable it.
Or, if spam remains a serious issue, quite possibly it's untargeted, and we can fix it just by slightly tweaking the account creation form (e.g. adding another field: "Type LLVM into the following box: [     ]", and verifying that that was done on the server).
Or, if it's targeted spam, maybe we have to figure out how to add a captcha to the account create page. 

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 4:56 PM Chandler Carruth <[hidden email]> wrote:
(briefly focused on notifications / subscriptions to tags)

Somewhat regardless of whether we use a single repo of issue tracking or multiple repos of issue tracking, we will need this. As a concrete example, I suspect maintainers of a particular target will have a strong desire to follow issues with *that* target, but not all other targets, and yet here we will have enough overlap to make these necessarily go into a single repo.

As to who should own this, I think that the community as a whole *has* to invest in infrastructure to support excellent issue tracking. The current situation is actively hurting the entire project, and IMO is even more urgent to fix than moving the code to github. So I think there are lots of resources we can and should point at addressing basic missing functionality like notifications.

Ilya, can you forward whatever ticket or tracking entry there is here? I'd love to try and surface the critical nature of this for the LLVM project to GitHub folks.
I have filed a support ticket, but didn't get any public link I could share (or any kind of response) yet.
I'll update the thread as soon as they'll come back. It might be worth posting the same bug in one of the public repositories under, I just couldn't figure out which one should I use...

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 8:03 AM Ilya Biryukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
The script queries **all** issues with specified labels and "notifies" on each of those.
While this approach works, I doubt it would scale well if everyone is doing this by hand. OTOH, building a service that does this for everyone might be feasible, albeit non-trivial and it's not clear who should own this.

So overall having this supported by GitHub would mean a much better UX...

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:09 PM James Y Knight <[hidden email]> wrote:
BTW, Google search found this tool:

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 8:02 AM Ilya Biryukov via llvm-dev <[hidden email] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:47 PM Chandler Carruth <[hidden email]> wrote:
Has anyone reached out to GitHub about potentially enabling this?
For the lack of a better place, filed a ticker against GitHub support. Will update the thread when they come back to me.

Ilya Biryukov
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]

Ilya Biryukov

Ilya Biryukov

Ilya Biryukov

cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]