bugzilla change

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bugzilla change

Chris Lattner
FYI, I changed bugzilla to simplify it a bit.  I removed all of the different priority levels (P1-5) so that we now just have one priority (I couldn't figure out how to remove the field) and simplified the severity field to only include "enhancement" "normal" and "release blocker".

There was some confusion about why bugs were "just a p5" etc, hopefully that is defined away now.

-Chris
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bugzilla change

Daniel Dunbar
Nice!

Can we get rid of the unnecessarily refined categories? From my
perspective, we rarely use the large list of components and products
that we have, and they just complicate things for users.

For Clang, for example, I think we could get away with
{Sema,C++,Codegen,[C++0x],Documentation} without any loss of
functionality.

 - Daniel

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Chris Lattner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> FYI, I changed bugzilla to simplify it a bit.  I removed all of the different priority levels (P1-5) so that we now just have one priority (I couldn't figure out how to remove the field) and simplified the severity field to only include "enhancement" "normal" and "release blocker".
>
> There was some confusion about why bugs were "just a p5" etc, hopefully that is defined away now.
>
> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bugzilla change

Chris Lattner

On Mar 8, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Daniel Dunbar wrote:

> Nice!
>
> Can we get rid of the unnecessarily refined categories? From my
> perspective, we rarely use the large list of components and products
> that we have, and they just complicate things for users.
>
> For Clang, for example, I think we could get away with
> {Sema,C++,Codegen,[C++0x],Documentation} without any loss of
> functionality.

Yes, I plan to clean up the llvm components as well, adding a top level code generation component etc.

If you tell me how you want the clang components, I'm happy to fix them.

-Chris

>
> - Daniel
>
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Chris Lattner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> FYI, I changed bugzilla to simplify it a bit.  I removed all of the different priority levels (P1-5) so that we now just have one priority (I couldn't figure out how to remove the field) and simplified the severity field to only include "enhancement" "normal" and "release blocker".
>>
>> There was some confusion about why bugs were "just a p5" etc, hopefully that is defined away now.
>>
>> -Chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bugzilla change

Daniel Dunbar
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Chris Lattner <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Mar 8, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Daniel Dunbar wrote:
>
>> Nice!
>>
>> Can we get rid of the unnecessarily refined categories? From my
>> perspective, we rarely use the large list of components and products
>> that we have, and they just complicate things for users.
>>
>> For Clang, for example, I think we could get away with
>> {Sema,C++,Codegen,[C++0x],Documentation} without any loss of
>> functionality.
>
> Yes, I plan to clean up the llvm components as well, adding a top level code generation component etc.
>
> If you tell me how you want the clang components, I'm happy to fix them.

I talked this over with Doug and Ted, lets remove: AST, Basic, Lex,
Parse, Sema, Driver, Headers, Preprocessor and replace them with a
single "Frontend" component. That leaves us with:

-New Bugs: New bugs can be filed here, no need to categorize.
Frontend: Issues in the preprocessor, parser, and semantic analyzer.
LLVM Codegen: Issues with the translation to LLVM intermediate
representation (IR).
Static Analyzer: Automatic Bug Finding, scan-build, etc
C++: C++ Related Issues
C++0x: Issues related to the implementation of the upcoming C++0x standard.

And we can kill C++0x if we get a C++0x keyword.

 - Daniel

>
> -Chris
>
>>
>> - Daniel
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Chris Lattner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> FYI, I changed bugzilla to simplify it a bit.  I removed all of the different priority levels (P1-5) so that we now just have one priority (I couldn't figure out how to remove the field) and simplified the severity field to only include "enhancement" "normal" and "release blocker".
>>>
>>> There was some confusion about why bugs were "just a p5" etc, hopefully that is defined away now.
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bugzilla change

Chris Lattner
>>> Can we get rid of the unnecessarily refined categories? From my
>>> perspective, we rarely use the large list of components and products
>>> that we have, and they just complicate things for users.
>>>
>>> For Clang, for example, I think we could get away with
>>> {Sema,C++,Codegen,[C++0x],Documentation} without any loss of
>>> functionality.
>>
>> Yes, I plan to clean up the llvm components as well, adding a top level code generation component etc.
>>
>> If you tell me how you want the clang components, I'm happy to fix them.
>
> I talked this over with Doug and Ted, lets remove: AST, Basic, Lex,
> Parse, Sema, Driver, Headers, Preprocessor and replace them with a
> single "Frontend" component. That leaves us with:
>
> -New Bugs: New bugs can be filed here, no need to categorize.
> Frontend: Issues in the preprocessor, parser, and semantic analyzer.
> LLVM Codegen: Issues with the translation to LLVM intermediate
> representation (IR).
> Static Analyzer: Automatic Bug Finding, scan-build, etc
> C++: C++ Related Issues
> C++0x: Issues related to the implementation of the upcoming C++0x standard.

Ok, I merged a bunch of stuff, we now have:

1. New bugs
2. C++
3. C++'0x
4. Documentation
5. Driver
6. Frontend
7. Headers
8. LLVM Codegen
9. Static Analyzer

Merging the driver and headers into "frontend" didn't seem right, but if you guys really want to do that, I can, just let me know.  I tend to agree that C++'0x should just be a keyword.  For that matter, C++ as a whole could be a keyword since it is orthogonal from the "where" in Clang it is.  Any thoughts or objection to that?

-Chris
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bugzilla change

Daniel Dunbar
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Chris Lattner <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>>> Can we get rid of the unnecessarily refined categories? From my
>>>> perspective, we rarely use the large list of components and products
>>>> that we have, and they just complicate things for users.
>>>>
>>>> For Clang, for example, I think we could get away with
>>>> {Sema,C++,Codegen,[C++0x],Documentation} without any loss of
>>>> functionality.
>>>
>>> Yes, I plan to clean up the llvm components as well, adding a top level code generation component etc.
>>>
>>> If you tell me how you want the clang components, I'm happy to fix them.
>>
>> I talked this over with Doug and Ted, lets remove: AST, Basic, Lex,
>> Parse, Sema, Driver, Headers, Preprocessor and replace them with a
>> single "Frontend" component. That leaves us with:
>>
>> -New Bugs: New bugs can be filed here, no need to categorize.
>> Frontend: Issues in the preprocessor, parser, and semantic analyzer.
>> LLVM Codegen: Issues with the translation to LLVM intermediate
>> representation (IR).
>> Static Analyzer: Automatic Bug Finding, scan-build, etc
>> C++: C++ Related Issues
>> C++0x: Issues related to the implementation of the upcoming C++0x standard.
>
> Ok, I merged a bunch of stuff, we now have:
>
> 1. New bugs
> 2. C++
> 3. C++'0x
> 4. Documentation
> 5. Driver
> 6. Frontend
> 7. Headers
> 8. LLVM Codegen
> 9. Static Analyzer
>
> Merging the driver and headers into "frontend" didn't seem right, but if you guys really want to do that, I can, just let me know.  I tend to agree that C++'0x should just be a keyword.  For that matter, C++ as a whole could be a keyword since it is orthogonal from the "where" in Clang it is.  Any thoughts or objection to that?

I think about it from a user / who-will fix perspective. To a user, I
don't there there is a difference between driver/frontend, and most
people who are willing to hack on the frontend could hack on the
driver or headers. OTOH, C++ bugs at least for now tend to be in a
separate class.

 - Daniel

>
> -Chris

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bugzilla change

Daniel Dunbar
Oh and,

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Daniel Dunbar <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Chris Lattner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Can we get rid of the unnecessarily refined categories? From my
>>>>> perspective, we rarely use the large list of components and products
>>>>> that we have, and they just complicate things for users.
>>>>>
>>>>> For Clang, for example, I think we could get away with
>>>>> {Sema,C++,Codegen,[C++0x],Documentation} without any loss of
>>>>> functionality.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I plan to clean up the llvm components as well, adding a top level code generation component etc.
>>>>
>>>> If you tell me how you want the clang components, I'm happy to fix them.
>>>
>>> I talked this over with Doug and Ted, lets remove: AST, Basic, Lex,
>>> Parse, Sema, Driver, Headers, Preprocessor and replace them with a
>>> single "Frontend" component. That leaves us with:
>>>
>>> -New Bugs: New bugs can be filed here, no need to categorize.
>>> Frontend: Issues in the preprocessor, parser, and semantic analyzer.
>>> LLVM Codegen: Issues with the translation to LLVM intermediate
>>> representation (IR).
>>> Static Analyzer: Automatic Bug Finding, scan-build, etc
>>> C++: C++ Related Issues
>>> C++0x: Issues related to the implementation of the upcoming C++0x standard.
>>
>> Ok, I merged a bunch of stuff, we now have:

Thanks! :)

 - Daniel

>> 1. New bugs
>> 2. C++
>> 3. C++'0x
>> 4. Documentation
>> 5. Driver
>> 6. Frontend
>> 7. Headers
>> 8. LLVM Codegen
>> 9. Static Analyzer
>>
>> Merging the driver and headers into "frontend" didn't seem right, but if you guys really want to do that, I can, just let me know.  I tend to agree that C++'0x should just be a keyword.  For that matter, C++ as a whole could be a keyword since it is orthogonal from the "where" in Clang it is.  Any thoughts or objection to that?
>
> I think about it from a user / who-will fix perspective. To a user, I
> don't there there is a difference between driver/frontend, and most
> people who are willing to hack on the frontend could hack on the
> driver or headers. OTOH, C++ bugs at least for now tend to be in a
> separate class.
>
>  - Daniel
>
>>
>> -Chris
>

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bugzilla change

Chris Lattner
In reply to this post by Daniel Dunbar

On Mar 12, 2010, at 12:10 AM, Daniel Dunbar wrote:

>>
>> Merging the driver and headers into "frontend" didn't seem right, but if you guys really want to do that, I can, just let me know.  I tend to agree that C++'0x should just be a keyword.  For that matter, C++ as a whole could be a keyword since it is orthogonal from the "where" in Clang it is.  Any thoughts or objection to that?
>
> I think about it from a user / who-will fix perspective. To a user, I
> don't there there is a difference between driver/frontend, and most
> people who are willing to hack on the frontend could hack on the
> driver or headers. OTOH, C++ bugs at least for now tend to be in a
> separate class.

I don't really see people filing bugs into the "driver" component for example, most people drop them in new bugs.  I see this as a useful way to classify bugs once they are filed if they aren't going to be immediately fixed.

-Chris
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bugzilla change

Daniel Dunbar
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Chris Lattner <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 12:10 AM, Daniel Dunbar wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Merging the driver and headers into "frontend" didn't seem right, but if you guys really want to do that, I can, just let me know.  I tend to agree that C++'0x should just be a keyword.  For that matter, C++ as a whole could be a keyword since it is orthogonal from the "where" in Clang it is.  Any thoughts or objection to that?
>>
>> I think about it from a user / who-will fix perspective. To a user, I
>> don't there there is a difference between driver/frontend, and most
>> people who are willing to hack on the frontend could hack on the
>> driver or headers. OTOH, C++ bugs at least for now tend to be in a
>> separate class.
>
> I don't really see people filing bugs into the "driver" component for example, most people drop them in new bugs.  I see this as a useful way to classify bugs once they are filed if they aren't going to be immediately fixed.

Maybe I just have a pipe dream that the same people who fix frontend
bugs will fix driver bugs. :)

 - Daniel

> -Chris

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev