Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [RFC] LLVM bug lifecycle BoF - triaging

[Kristof Beyls via lldb-dev]

On 5 Oct 2018, at 07:04, Dean Michael Berris 
mailto:dean.ber...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Thank you for starting this conversation! I look forward to the results of the 
BoF discussion summarised as well.

Dean, all,

There was a lively discussion at the BoF; we’ve tried to take notes at 
https://etherpad.net/p/LLVMBugLifeCycleBoF but probably have failed to capture 
all the points. The slides used to kick start the discussion can be found at 
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ERB9IQAjSwaNpEnlbchQzd_V9IQlLOojgo9J0_NXvYA/edit

Both at the BoF and in the mail thread, there have been many suggestions for 
improvements. So many that if we’d want to introduce all of them at once, we’d 
probably get stuck and not introduce any. To try and make progress on the ones 
I myself feel are most useful, I’ve volunteered for 2 actions:

1. Write up a proposal for documentation on what to do during bug 
triaging/closing/etc. I’ve just done so and put it up for review at 
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53691.
2. Write an email to the mailing lists to ask for volunteers for being on the 
“default-cc” list for components, implying you’re willing to triage bugs 
reported against those components. I’ve decided to first try and get consensus 
on what is expected when triaging a bug (see point above) before actively 
searching for volunteers for all components. That being said, both at the dev 
meeting and in the days after, I already received many requests from people to 
be added to the default-cc list for specific components. Of course, I’m very 
happy to add people volunteering to default-cc lists, so if you don’t want to 
wait to get added to a default-cc list, please email 
bugs-ad...@lists.llvm.org or raise it as a 
ticket in bugs.llvm.org under “Bugzilla Admin”/“Products”.

Furthermore, since the BoF, I’ve seen a quite a few requests to clean up and 
introduce new components in Bugzilla. We’ve implemented the changes quickly and 
will aim to continue to have a quick response time in the future. Please file a 
ticket in bugs.llvm.org under “Bugzilla Admin”/“Products” 
if you want to request a specific change.

For most of the other points that were raised: I don’t currently plan on acting 
on them immediately myself and hope to first see an impact of the above actions.

Thanks,

Kristof

___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [RFC] LLVM bug lifecycle BoF - triaging

[Richard Smith via lldb-dev]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 05:10, Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev <
cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On 5 Oct 2018, at 07:04, Dean Michael Berris 
> wrote:
>
> Thank you for starting this conversation! I look forward to the results of
> the BoF discussion summarised as well.
>
>
> Dean, all,
>
> There was a lively discussion at the BoF; we’ve tried to take notes at
> https://etherpad.net/p/LLVMBugLifeCycleBoF but probably have failed to
> capture all the points. The slides used to kick start the discussion can be
> found at
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ERB9IQAjSwaNpEnlbchQzd_V9IQlLOojgo9J0_NXvYA/edit
>
> Both at the BoF and in the mail thread, there have been many suggestions
> for improvements. So many that if we’d want to introduce all of them at
> once, we’d probably get stuck and not introduce any. To try and make
> progress on the ones I myself feel are most useful, I’ve volunteered for 2
> actions:
>
> 1. Write up a proposal for documentation on what to do during bug
> triaging/closing/etc. I’ve just done so and put it up for review at
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D53691.
> 2. Write an email to the mailing lists to ask for volunteers for being on
> the “default-cc” list for components, implying you’re willing to triage
> bugs reported against those components. I’ve decided to first try and get
> consensus on what is expected when triaging a bug (see point above) before
> actively searching for volunteers for all components. That being said, both
> at the dev meeting and in the days after, I already received many requests
> from people to be added to the default-cc list for specific components. Of
> course, I’m very happy to add people volunteering to default-cc lists, so
> if you don’t want to wait to get added to a default-cc list, please email
> bugs-ad...@lists.llvm.org or raise it as a ticket in bugs.llvm.org under
> “Bugzilla Admin”/“Products”.
>
> Furthermore, since the BoF, I’ve seen a quite a few requests to clean up
> and introduce new components in Bugzilla. We’ve implemented the changes
> quickly and will aim to continue to have a quick response time in the
> future. Please file a ticket in bugs.llvm.org under “Bugzilla
> Admin”/“Products” if you want to request a specific change.
>
> For most of the other points that were raised: I don’t currently plan on
> acting on them immediately myself and hope to first see an impact of the
> above actions.
>

In the original post, there was a suggestion to bring back the
"UNCONFIRMED" status. I think that'd be a great idea, as it both makes it
easy to search for untriaged bugs and to give feedback to a reporter that
their bug is real and acknowledged. Is that planned?

Also, a big problem with bugzilla as we have it configured today is that
commenting on an existing bug often sends mail to literally no-one. Can we
reconfigure this so that llvmbugs gets mail for comments on bugs, not just
for opening and closing bugs?
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev