On Friday, 23 June 2023 at 13:03:44 UTC, Elias wrote:
>> Because all our code is at GH, if you have a GH account you don't need to create a Bugzilla account just to file, some developers won't touch Bugzilla, we don't have direct admin access to our Bugzilla (the admin disabled account creation with gmail addresses because of spam), etc.
>
> ^ which btw also implies that the Bugzilla instance isn’t even exactly run by the DLF

To clarify:
I fail to see the advantage of a webservice that isn’t run by the DLF and where the DLF lacks essentials admin permissions is any better than the services provided by the forge that also hosts the DLF repos already.

errata:

> I fail to see the advantage of a webservice that isn’t run by the DLF and where the DLF lacks essentials admin permissions [plus how it] is any better than the services provided by the forge that also hosts the DLF repos already.

On Friday, 23 June 2023 at 13:10:04 UTC, Elias wrote:

> To clarify:
> I fail to see the advantage of a webservice that isn’t run by the DLF and where the DLF lacks essentials admin permissions is any better than the services provided by the forge that also hosts the DLF repos already.

Keep in mind that all of our infrastructure was built up by volunteers with their own accounts on various services. We've had direct admin access to very little of it. We're in the process of bringing as much of it as we can under DLF control. So there was never a question of keeping the current Bugzilla instance forever. The question was, do we migrate to a new Bugzilla instance under our control, or to GitHub? We opted for GitHhub.

On Friday, 23 June 2023 at 13:19:36 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> Keep in mind that all of our infrastructure was built up by volunteers with their own accounts on various services.

Please don’t me wrong on that. My gratefulness and thanks to all of them who have invested their time and/or money into keeping up the infrastructure so far.

On Friday, 23 June 2023 at 13:01:35 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> I don't see how we can post them as the original user, though. From what I understand, it requires the id and a token.

The LLVM folks did it:

https://github.com/burner/D_bugzilla_to_github/issues/1

You can "claim your contributions", in which case they will appear as your personal GitHub account. If you don't do that, they will still be posted with the original user's name, as a special GitHub "mannequin" user.

We should research the possibility too.

On 24/06/2023 3:11 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>         Hey Mike, we had somebody get a deny on creating a bugzilla
>         account due to gmail email account
> 
> I assume Mike is Mike Parker? Mike, were you getting these?

On 9/6/2022 I raised this on Discord with Mike about finding a solution to gmail blocking.

So its a well known set of issues.

On 6/23/23 15:01, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Friday, 23 June 2023 at 12:31:39 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 6/23/23 11:53, Robert Schadek wrote:
>>>>
> 
>>
>> Yes, unfortunately it is true that many people won't report issues on bugzilla. Preserving the existing issues is still really important as well. Those are issues reported by _enthusiastic people who let themselves be assed to report on bugzilla_, and we owe them to treat their issues well. In particular, I think moving issues to github issues and giving all the github contributions/authorship for those issues to yourself and Mike is a terrible way to move forward, even if the issues are technically in the public domain and/or belong to DLF.
> 
> For the record, I intend to create a special account for adding the issues to GitHub (e.g., "bugzilla_migration"). I certainly don't want them all in my name. I don't see how we can post them as the original user, though. From what I understand, it requires the id and a token.

My preference order:
1. Migrate all information that has a correspondence on github perfectly
2. Keep bugzilla, additionally allow github issues for new reports, synch issues into bugzilla
3. Keep status quo
4. Migrate single comments as bugzilla_migration user
5. ...

Of course, that's just my preference, not all of those are the same amount of effort, and some effort has already been spent. It would be great to explore Vladimir's suggestions. If we can do what LLVM did, that would be awesome.

On Friday, 23 June 2023 at 15:52:16 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:

> My preference order:
> 1. Migrate all information that has a correspondence on github perfectly

>
> Of course, that's just my preference, not all of those are the same amount of effort, and some effort has already been spent. It would be great to explore Vladimir's suggestions. If we can do what LLVM did, that would be awesome.

So we've put the brakes on things for now. Robert is going to reach out to GitHub to see if they can do something for us like they did for LLVM. Then we'll hopefully be able to push the issues to GitHub under the original poster's handle. Of the issues raised here, that's the one thing we can't manage on our own.

On 24/06/2023 4:02 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
> Robert is going to reach out to GitHub to see if they can do something for us like they did for LLVM.

Hopefully they can also up the rate limit too!

Would be worth asking about, even if it did cost a little bit.