Re: Trac to Phabricator (Maniphest) migration prototype

I should have looked more closely at the implementation.. the component field was already preserved. There is a bug where it is not set properly if it was set by the ticket reporter. I will look into this problem this evening! Matt On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Matthew Pickering wrote:

I am persuaded that component is useful. Richard makes the point that there is a murky divide between component and keywords. This is right and it indicates that we should keep the component field but also homogenise it was the keywords (in the form of projects).

I have included which fields are used frequently in the footer of this message.

The arguments for version are not convincing. The first thing you do when working on a ticket anyway is to try and reproduce the bug with a test case in HEAD. The date a ticket reported is as good an indicator of version.

I also noted that I neglected to update the dateUpdated field for tickets so queries by date last modified do not currently work and some dates may appear strange when searching.

Edward: There is support for bucketing by project as well. See this query for example, http://ec2-52-214-147-146.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/maniphest/query/An...

In these discussions we should remember that phabricator is not trac. I am not trying to exactly recreate the trac experience because otherwise we might as well carry on using trac.

Matt

newvalue | count | data last used

-------------------------+-------+------------------ Core Libraries | 171 | 1467895032829170 Compiler (Type checker) | 162 | 1473084454218219 Runtime System | 128 | 1465462467207643 GHCi | 78 | 1469178319691539 Build System | 67 | 1466005572342115 libraries/base | 63 | 1434353266824396 Template Haskell | 60 | 1471813543330680 Compiler | 57 | 1454111515909737 Compiler (Parser) | 48 | 1469089960346131 libraries (other) | 43 | 1426680041417003 Documentation | 34 | 1469109265405752 Runtime System (Linker) | 31 | 1465457535216398 Profiling | 27 | 1464370392337006 Compiler (NCG) | 24 | 1464454221111344 Driver | 23 | 1464988993920936 Compiler (Linking) | 20 | 1453415934718049 Package system | 19 | 1445379269305504 Test Suite | 19 | 1466101320438273 libraries/process | 17 | 1380279285602376 Compiler (LLVM) | 17 | 1453643706521552 Trac & Git | 13 | 1417192612294646 Compiler (CodeGen) | 12 | 1466888486602141 Code Coverage | 9 | 1463929919796252 Compiler (FFI) | 9 | 1438109440242842 libraries/unix | 8 | 1393611940333801 Data Parallel Haskell | 8 | 1427089471985001 None | 8 | 1457637409612864 hsc2hs | 5 | 1433929228414856 libraries/network | 5 | 1225140383000000 libraries/random | 4 | 1404824781090514 libraries/directory | 4 | 1355926496000000 External Core | 4 | 1365855698000000 libraries/pretty | 4 | 1321743759000000 ghc-pkg | 4 | 1447954686599857 GHC API | 3 | 1463577929270933 libraries/HGL | 3 | 1214961444000000 Prelude | 2 | 1313617037000000 libraries/haskell98 | 1 | 1186695581000000 libraries (old-time) | 1 | 1215426256000000 Visual Haskell | 1 | 1166430307000000 NoFib benchmark suite | 1 | 1405260335339305

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:

...

Excerpts from Matthew Pickering's message of 2017-01-03 23:32:42 +0000:

...

The version field is not very useful as there are only two active branches at once. Instead we want a project which marks tickets which apply to the 8.0.2 branch for example. Tickets which refer to ancient versions of GHC should be closed if they can't be reproduced with HEAD. It is also not used very often, only updated on about 600 tickets.

Echoing Richard's comment, it's a helpful reminder to the reporter to say what version of GHC the bug was on. If it's old, the first thing to do is check if it still fails in HEAD.

...

I'm also skeptical about how useful the component field is. I've never personally used it and it is not accurate for the majority of tickets. If someone disagrees then please say but it is really not used very much.

I think that there is a substantial subset of tickets that have a good "component" characterization. I have historically found "Runtime system", "Linker", "Build system", "Profiling" and a number of others very useful. Yes, a lot of tickets get dumped in "Compiler", but many have very good categorization!

...

2. This is a legitimate point. I will say in response that the majority of triaging is done by those who regularly use the bug tracker. These people will know the correct tags to use. There are occasionally people who submit tickets and ask questions about what to fill in these fields or fill them in incorrectly. Removing them for a uniform system is advantageous in my opinion.

I am a "regular user" of Cabal's GitHub bug tracker, and I find it difficult to remember to apply all of the tags that I'm "supposed" to for any given ticket. It got better when I reorged all the tags to give them a prefix for the "category" they were in, but I still have to scroll through the list that contains ALL THE TAGS when really I just want to select one per category. For example, priority in GH is a complete lost cause because none of the display mechanisms take priority into account.

Another benefit of tags by category is in tabular views, you can ask to group things by category, or priority, etc. Tag based systems rarely have this kind of UI.

...

I agree with you about the default layout. I would also like a more compact view but I feel this style is the prevailing modern web dev trend.

Well, this is something we can fix with a little CSS :)

Edward

...

Thanks for your comments.

Matt

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:

...

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for doing the work for setting up this prototype, it definitely helps in making an informed decision about the switch.

Some comments:

1. In your original email, you stated that many of the custom fields were going to be replaced with Phabricator "projects" (their equivalent of tags). First, I noticed a little trouble where some fields were just completely lost. Compare:

http://ec2-52-214-147-146.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/T8095 https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8095

AFAICT, we lost version the bug was found in, architecture, component. I hope we can keep these details in the real migration! Also related tickets doesn't seem to be working (see example above); migration problem?