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

On 7/27/2016 12:17 PM, Chris Bieneman wrote:
>
> This is a really bad argument for large influential changes like this.
Quite the contrary---anybody can participate and anybody can express 
their concerns, explain their goals, their workflow, etc.  For a large 
influential changes like this, "zoning out" is a poor choice of
action.
> I suspect this is why the idea of having a survey or vote has received
significant support.
I haven't seen any support for voting or for a survey.  Both are 
strictly worse, as neither provides an interactive forum where the final 
decision is built, instead of selected.

-Krzysztof

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

Hi,

These threads are so active that everyone chiming in with votes would cause
masses of noise. I'm all in favour of a survey, as someone who is very
interested in the outcome but out of my depth discussing the mechanics.

Fwiw, +1 monorepo. We use gerrit downstream and pre commit testing for a
commit that spans clang, LLVM and libc++ is awkward to orchestrate in CI
systems. A single diff on one repo is much nicer.

James
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 18:37, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 7/27/2016 12:17 PM, Chris Bieneman wrote:
> >
> > This is a really bad argument for large influential changes like this.
>
> Quite the contrary---anybody can participate and anybody can express
> their concerns, explain their goals, their workflow, etc.  For a large
> influential changes like this, "zoning out" is a poor choice of
action.
>
> > I suspect this is why the idea of having a survey or vote has received
> significant support.
>
> I haven't seen any support for voting or for a survey.  Both are
> strictly worse, as neither provides an interactive forum where the final
> decision is built, instead of selected.
>
> -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/ed11cc48/attachment.html>

On 7/27/2016 12:41 PM, James Molloy wrote:
>
> These threads are so active that everyone chiming in with votes would
> cause masses of noise.
This is about people voicing their concerns with what is being proposed. 
It happened in this thread that people opposed to an idea changed their 
minds once their concern has been addressed (e.g. sparse checkouts, etc.).

Votes would be based on the current understanding of the situation by 
the participants, which may include fears that the change will affect 
them negatively. Simply voting does not offer the possibility of finding 
solutions. At the same time a survey, if it's interactive, may turn out 
to be the equivalent of this exact thread.

People should pay attention to how the final solution is evolving. If 
this is something that does not work for them, they should speak up.

-Krzysztof


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

> On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 7/27/2016 12:17 PM, Chris Bieneman wrote:
>> 
>> This is a really bad argument for large influential changes like this.
> 
> Quite the contrary---anybody can participate and anybody can express their
concerns, explain their goals, their workflow, etc.  For a large influential
changes like this, "zoning out" is a poor choice of action.
Agree. 
> 
>> I suspect this is why the idea of having a survey or vote has received
significant support.
> 
> I haven't seen any support for voting or for a survey.  Both are
strictly worse, as neither provides an interactive forum where the final
decision is built, instead of selected.
I agree with all your points but the support for a survey: I think it was always
part of the original plan, i.e. discuss the most common workflows on the mailing
list, elaborate one or multiple model that can have enough traction, and then go
with a survey to have a picture of how it would impact the community.
Ultimately a survey is not really a vote, I don’t know how we would take the
final decision on this though.

See Tanya’s contribution here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-June/100512.html

About voting per-se, see this thread:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-foundation/2016-June/000051.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-foundation/2016-June/000051.html>


— 
Mehdi

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160727/41f991ac/attachment.html>