I thought this conversation was worth saving. DannyB who did wonderful
things with GCC's use of bugzilla has offered the same capability to
LLVM.
Thanks, Danny!
<DannyB> sabre: BTW, if you need any of the bugzilla fun i have implemented for gcc, let me know
[22:47] <sabre> Cool, what kinds of things do you have?
[22:47] <DannyB> Besides the triplet stuff, i changed some of the workflow, added some email related features (incoming email handling, changed outgoing email format, made it not send out "useless" emails like keyword-only changes), etc
[22:48] <DannyB> Incoming email handling and comment appending by email now handles attachments properly
[22:48] <DannyB> all kinds of stuff
[22:48] <sabre> Incoming email handling is the thing I would be most interested in
[22:48] <sabre> It would be really nice to be able to respond to a bugzilla sent mail and have it appended to the bug
[22:48] <DannyB> That's easy
[22:48] <sabre> Is it built in?
[22:48] <sabre> 
[22:49] <DannyB> define "builtin"
[22:49] <sabre> I wouldn't be surprised if there was just a setting that needed to be enabled.
[22:49] <DannyB> No, because you have to set up incoming email aliases
[22:49] <DannyB> So that the mail gets passed off to the script
[22:49] <sabre> Ok
[22:50] <sabre> well easy is good. Are there dox for doing it, or do you have local hacks in the gcc bugz?
[22:50] <DannyB> I also added support so that we know who made the change, and it gets spam-protected and placed in the from
[22:50] <sabre> You've been busy!
[22:50] <DannyB> So you see email from "dan at dberlin dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
[22:50] <DannyB> instead of "Bugzilla daemon"
[22:50] <sabre> That is nice
[22:51] <DannyB> I'll email you the incoming comment handling script. it's rather small, and easy to deal with.
[22:51] <sabre> Hrm, yeah, how can I get some of this stuff from you?
[22:51] <sabre> sounds great!
[22:51] <DannyB> or you can check it out from the gcc CVS repo
[22:51] <DannyB> it's in wwwdocs/bugzilla/contrib
[22:51] <DannyB> bugzilla_email_append.pl and BugzillaEmailpl
[22:51] <DannyB> s/pl/.pm/
[22:51] <sabre> brg and misha are the bugzilla guys
[22:52] <sabre> I haven't done much at all with it, but we will definitely take a look
[22:52] <DannyB> Happy to help in any way i can
[22:52] <sabre> Yeah, just responding to the emails would make things so much faster
[22:52] Action: sabre is worklist driven from his inbox
[22:52] <DannyB> I'm responsible for having moved gcc from GNATS to bugzilla, and now for maintaining gcc bugzilla
[22:52] <DannyB> I also have a nice email interface to bugzilla
[22:52] <sabre> Yeah, I remember the transition
[22:52] <DannyB> so you can get the results of bug queries by email
[22:53] <sabre> Hrm, I don't mind using the "gui" for most things. It's just the conversations/feedback on bugs that drives me (more) nuts
[22:53] <DannyB> okay, well, all you have to do is set the reply-to on the emails sent out to be the email address of the incoming handler.
[22:54] <DannyB> and make sure people don't quote the entire damn email in a response
[22:54] <sabre> heh
[22:54] <sabre> That might be the difficult issue
[22:54] <DannyB> (otherwise, it'll appear in the comment)
[22:54] <sabre> understood
[22:54] <DannyB> Well, there are various ways to take care of it from a script perspective
[22:54] <DannyB> you could put BUGZILLA:> in front of every line, then ignore every response line with it
[22:54] <DannyB> or something
[22:54] <sabre> That could work
[22:55] Action: sabre ponders
[22:55] <sabre> brg: ping
[22:55] <DannyB> there are a billion ways to do it
[22:55] Action: brg returned Tue Jun 22 22:44:30 2004 -- (hmm)
[22:55] <brg> hi what's up
[22:55] <sabre> read the last dozen lines
[22:55] <sabre> or so
[22:56] <sabre> maybe 2 or 3 dozen
[22:56] <brg> oh... bugmail?
[22:56] <sabre> da
[22:56] <DannyB> i hacked up bugzilla_email_append to be actually useful
[22:56] <DannyB> as opposed to a useless piece of crap
[22:57] <sabre> Do you know anything about the bugmail stuff in bugz brg?
[22:57] <brg> i haven't looked into it much, other than to implement the llvmbugs list
[22:57] <DannyB> what is the reply-to on llvmbugs?
[22:58] <DannyB> for gcc-bugs, we have the reply-to go to the comment appending script, and make sure people don't cc the list again
[22:58] <sabre> llvmbugs just gets mail when a bug is opened and resolved
[22:58] <DannyB> oh
[22:58] <sabre> But bugz sends out emails to people on the CC line for every change
[22:58] <sabre> (of course)
[22:58] <DannyB> what version of bugzilla are you guys using?
[22:59] <sabre> llvmbugs is designed for people who want to keep track of stuff bug not get overwhelmed
[22:59] <sabre> j/s
[22:59] <brg> 2.16.something
[22:59] <DannyB> ah
[22:59] <DannyB> the script might not work with 2.16.*
[22:59] <sabre> Here's the archives for llvmbugs: http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmbugs/
[22:59] <DannyB> Well, without some changes
[22:59] <brg> someday we ought to upgrade to 2.17, but it's been a pretty low priority task
[22:59] <sabre> and bugz itself: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/bugs/
[23:00] <DannyB> See, for example, rather than seeing
[23:00] <DannyB> bugzilla-daemon@cs.uiuc.edu bugzilla-daemon@cs.uiuc.edu
[23:00] <DannyB> "
[23:00] <DannyB> sabre@nondot.org changed:
[23:00] <DannyB> "
[23:00] <DannyB> you'll see "sabre at nondot dot org" bugzilla-daemon@cs.uiuc.edu
[23:00] <DannyB> in the from
[23:00] <sabre> that would be nice, but the report does say who it's from. It's annoying but works
[23:00] <DannyB> this was actually a rather simple change
[23:00] <sabre> I beleive it
[23:00] <sabre> it could be cool
[23:00] <sabre> because then the subject lines are more useful
[23:00] <DannyB> well, whatevery you guys want
[23:01] <sabre> what do you think brg?
[23:01] <DannyB> i'm just offering the neurons i've used maintaining gcc bugzilla
[23:01] <sabre> I think that setting the 'name' would be cool
[23:01] <sabre> This is pretty useless, for example: http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmbugs/2004-June/thread.html
[23:01] <brg> i don't feel like i have the time to overhaul bugzilla at the moment
[23:02] <sabre> But just replying to mails would be the killer feature
[23:02] <sabre> Do you have some links to point me at dan?
[23:02] <sabre> links being files?
[23:02] <DannyB> in the gcc bugs mail, or in terms of source?
[23:02] <sabre> the source
[23:02] <DannyB> one sec
[23:03] <sabre> btw, target triples aren't super useful to us, because we always build cross compilers
[23:03] <DannyB> i figured as much
[23:03] <sabre> a bug in the X86 target is just that
[23:03] <DannyB> it's also somewhat invasive anyway
[23:03] <sabre> you can hit it on sparcs
[23:04] <sabre> (not because sparcs use the X86 target, but because they CAN)
[23:04] Action: sabre shrugs
[23:04] <DannyB> this is our bugzilla_email_append
[23:04] <DannyB> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/wwwdocs/bugzilla/contrib/bugzilla_email_append.pl?rev=1.20&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
[23:04] <DannyB> it requires
[23:04] <DannyB> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/wwwdocs/bugzilla/contrib/BugzillaEmail.pm?rev=1.7&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
[23:04] <DannyB> that
[23:04] <DannyB> and that's it
[23:05] <sabre> did you completely rewrite this thing?
[23:05] <DannyB> I can't honestly remember anymore
[23:05] <DannyB> I hate perl
[23:05] Action: sabre agrees vigorously
[23:06] <DannyB> me must go to bed
[23:06] <sabre> So I really don't know much about bugzilla.
[23:06] <sabre> What changes between versions? DB layout?
[23:06] <DannyB> 2.16->2.17 is a db layout change
[23:06] <sabre> ok, sounds good, we can chat about this tomorrow.
[23:06] <sabre> ok
[23:06] <DannyB> bugzilla is usually years between point releases unfortunately
[23:06] <sabre> Will you be around tomorrow afternoon sometime?
[23:06] <DannyB> yes
[23:07] <DannyB> i'll be around all day tomorrow
[23:07] <sabre> Ok, we should get _misha_ around
[23:07] <DannyB> hacking loop transforms
[23:07] <sabre> in on this
[23:07] <DannyB> okeydokey
[23:07] <sabre> cool, hopefully the LLVM ones
[23:07] <sabre> sounds good, thanks for the ptrs
[23:07] <DannyB> Hand me classic distance and direction vectors, and I'll hand you a loop transformer
[23:08] <sabre> Hrm, yeah well we don't have dep analysis yet.
[23:08] <sabre> It would be pretty easy to build it out of the SCEV + AA code
[23:08] <DannyB> right
[23:08] <sabre> If nothing else, we do have a robust AA infrastructure
[23:08] <DannyB> which is why i'm working slow. I let sebastian implement the dependency analysis stuff in GCC
[23:08] <DannyB>
[23:08] <sabre> heh
[23:08] <sabre> Which it seems like he has issues with
[23:09] <DannyB> The closest i like to get to dependence analysis is to touch the result
[23:09] <DannyB> s
[23:09] <sabre> as an outsider observation
[23:09] <DannyB> no, it works fine, actually
[23:09] <DannyB> we've just been removing the experimental scalar evolutions recently
[23:09] <sabre> k
[23:09] <brg> i'll see if i can figure out what it would take to upgrade to a recent bugzilla
[23:09] <DannyB> we'll add them back as we prove they are useful
[23:09] <sabre> I saw intervals just disappear
[23:09] <DannyB> brg: That isn't specifically necessary
[23:09] <DannyB> Do you guys have intervals?
[23:09] <sabre> no
[23:09] <DannyB> Right.
[23:09] <sabre> I didn't think they would make much of a difference at all
[23:09] <DannyB> Right
[23:10] <sabre> likewise with exp nodes
[23:10] <DannyB> Hence, why we are removing them for now
[23:10] <sabre> yah
[23:10] <DannyB> exponential will be removed as well, if it's not gone
[23:10] <sabre> I was much more interested in only implementing stuff that won't break programs
[23:10] <DannyB> brg: I can make the script work with 2.16
[23:10] <sabre> Hence we're VERY conservative about integer wrap around and stuff
[23:10] <brg> er, ok
[23:11] <DannyB> brg: I'm pretty sure, anyway
[23:11] <DannyB> brg: I don't believe the longdesc format changed
[23:12] <sabre> Ok, well if you guys want to continue this tomorrow afternoon, we can drag misha in
[23:12] <DannyB> okey
[23:12] <sabre> Thanks Dan!
[23:13] <brg> i think i'll at least update to 2.16.5
[23:13] <sabre> brg: that would be cool
[23:15] <sabre> brg: did you just do something to bugzilla?
[23:15] <sabre> It seems like it just got unwedged or something
[23:15] <brg> yup, i upgraded it to 2.16.5, and fixed the sanity check error that i got
[23:15] <sabre> already??
[23:15] <brg> i think it let loose with a bunch of old mail
[23:15] <sabre> ya
[23:15] <brg> yeah it's pretty easy to do the minor upgrades
[23:16] <sabre> cool
[23:16] <sabre> Thanks!
