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

On 27 July 2016 at 17:47, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> First and foremost please don’t consider lack of dissent on the thread as
> presence of consensus.
Hi Chris,

First things first: I give you my word that I will be yelling louder
than others if this ever happens. (I can be *very* loud! :)

People can push and yell all they want, changes like this are not done
over mailing list discussions.

I have volunteered to "take on" the discussion and try to make it fair
and sound, and I'll do my best to include all opinions in the end.

Also, I will not decide, nor push towards any one decision. I hope you
trust me that there is no bias from my part. For example, what was
considered "my" proposal was actually not what I would have wanted or
benefited me.

But we do have limited time to discuss (and work on the compiler at
the same time), and I don't want to drag this for years (I don't have
the stamina).

So, the current "plan" is to formalise all proposals in around a
month's time by uploading them as documents to docs/Proposals/*.rst,
then put the survey up and let people take their time to answer
(another month), than take some time to analyse the results, sharing
the results with the community. If all goes well, we can do a session
on US LLVM, where we take all the survey feedback into account and
with a large group of people, take some decision.

Of course, any decision will leave people supporting the N-1 other
workflows wanting, and there's no way to avoid this. But the current
solution is *already* letting  a lot of people down, so I don't see a
way out where everyone will be happy.

> The various git-related threads on LLVM-dev lately
> have been so active and contentious that I think a lot of people are zoning
> out on the conversations.
I know... :(

> I think it would be great for us to have several different proposals for
how
> the git-transition could work, and have a survey to get people’s opinions.
Yup.

> I know this has been discussed repeatedly, and I want to put in my vote in
> favor of having a survey that takes into account multiple different
> approaches.
Yup.

Barring time and survey size limitations, we can have as many as we want.

I personally feel two is minimum, three is good, four is too much.

I also think we should include "stay as it is" as an option, even if I
don't think there will be that many votes towards it.

If you want to discuss specifically about the survey, please get
involved in the llvm-foundation's thread "Voting".

cheers,
--renato

Krystof,

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.

Cheers,

James
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 19:01, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 27 July 2016 at 17:47, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > First and foremost please don’t consider lack of dissent on the thread
as
> > presence of consensus.
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> First things first: I give you my word that I will be yelling louder
> than others if this ever happens. (I can be *very* loud! :)
>
> People can push and yell all they want, changes like this are not done
> over mailing list discussions.
>
> I have volunteered to "take on" the discussion and try to make it
fair
> and sound, and I'll do my best to include all opinions in the end.
>
> Also, I will not decide, nor push towards any one decision. I hope you
> trust me that there is no bias from my part. For example, what was
> considered "my" proposal was actually not what I would have
wanted or
> benefited me.
>
> But we do have limited time to discuss (and work on the compiler at
> the same time), and I don't want to drag this for years (I don't
have
> the stamina).
>
> So, the current "plan" is to formalise all proposals in around a
> month's time by uploading them as documents to docs/Proposals/*.rst,
> then put the survey up and let people take their time to answer
> (another month), than take some time to analyse the results, sharing
> the results with the community. If all goes well, we can do a session
> on US LLVM, where we take all the survey feedback into account and
> with a large group of people, take some decision.
>
> Of course, any decision will leave people supporting the N-1 other
> workflows wanting, and there's no way to avoid this. But the current
> solution is *already* letting  a lot of people down, so I don't see a
> way out where everyone will be happy.
>
>
> > The various git-related threads on LLVM-dev lately
> > have been so active and contentious that I think a lot of people are
> zoning
> > out on the conversations.
>
> I know... :(
>
>
> > I think it would be great for us to have several different proposals
for
> how
> > the git-transition could work, and have a survey to get people’s
> opinions.
>
> Yup.
>
>
> > I know this has been discussed repeatedly, and I want to put in my
vote
> in
> > favor of having a survey that takes into account multiple different
> > approaches.
>
> Yup.
>
> Barring time and survey size limitations, we can have as many as we want.
>
> I personally feel two is minimum, three is good, four is too much.
>
> I also think we should include "stay as it is" as an option, even
if I
> don't think there will be that many votes towards it.
>
> If you want to discuss specifically about the survey, please get
> involved in the llvm-foundation's thread "Voting".
>
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160727/2ba81e02/attachment.html>

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