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

Renato Golin via llvm-dev
2016-07-27T18:00:32Z

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