llvm dev - Jul 2016 - [RFC] One or many git repositories?

On 7/27/2016 1:04 PM, James Molloy via llvm-dev wrote:
> This thread is not particularly inviting. It has over 300 replies at the
> time of writing and we don't all have the time to delve into such a
> quagmire. That doesn't mean our opinions are worthless.
It doesn't take reading all responses to see where the discussion is 
going. Important decisions take time to make. People took a lot of 
effort in this thread to present their ideas and to address various 
concerns. I bet they all have other things to do as well.

-Krzysztof

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation

Hi,

That's why we collate responses and provide summaries and proposals, which
is what Renato did. There are a lot of technical deep dives on this thread
that make it difficult to keep track of where consensus is going.

Besides which we surely care about all our users and developers, and not
just the loud ones or ones with enough cajones to chip in on a massive
thread full of big names without fear of embarrassing themselves. We also
surely don't want a slew of '+1 to the proposal 93 replies ago'; how
does
that help anyone decide if consensus is reached?

How can you decide that people who don't see this thread don't get the
chance to vote? It's summer time and people *will* be on vacation. Do you
expect them to find this in their inbox when they come back and read
through every response? This is not realistic.

James
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 19:23, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 7/27/2016 1:04 PM, James Molloy via llvm-dev wrote:
> > This thread is not particularly inviting. It has over 300 replies at
the
> > time of writing and we don't all have the time to delve into such
a
> > quagmire. That doesn't mean our opinions are worthless.
>
> It doesn't take reading all responses to see where the discussion is
> going. Important decisions take time to make. People took a lot of
> effort in this thread to present their ideas and to address various
> concerns. I bet they all have other things to do as well.
>
> -Krzysztof
>
> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160727/14fc2fcf/attachment.html>

Maybe we can hit the pause button on this issue of a survey vs
consensus-building.  I think it's a distraction from the main issue
here, and it makes it harder for everyone else to participate in the
thread.

That said, I really do think that perspectives like Justin B's below
are important.  That is, if people have a problem with the monorepo,
it is useful they can join the thread and say why.  That's true
regardless of whether we use a survey or not.

-Justin

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:29 AM, James Molloy via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> That's why we collate responses and provide summaries and proposals,
which
> is what Renato did. There are a lot of technical deep dives on this thread
> that make it difficult to keep track of where consensus is going.
>
> Besides which we surely care about all our users and developers, and not
> just the loud ones or ones with enough cajones to chip in on a massive
> thread full of big names without fear of embarrassing themselves. We also
> surely don't want a slew of '+1 to the proposal 93 replies
ago'; how does
> that help anyone decide if consensus is reached?
>
> How can you decide that people who don't see this thread don't get
the
> chance to vote? It's summer time and people *will* be on vacation. Do
you
> expect them to find this in their inbox when they come back and read
through
> every response? This is not realistic.
>
> James
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 19:23, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/27/2016 1:04 PM, James Molloy via llvm-dev wrote:
>> > This thread is not particularly inviting. It has over 300 replies
at the
>> > time of writing and we don't all have the time to delve into
such a
>> > quagmire. That doesn't mean our opinions are worthless.
>>
>> It doesn't take reading all responses to see where the discussion
is
>> going. Important decisions take time to make. People took a lot of
>> effort in this thread to present their ideas and to address various
>> concerns. I bet they all have other things to do as well.
>>
>> -Krzysztof
>>
>> --
>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
>> hosted by The Linux Foundation
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>