llvm dev - Aug 2016 - [RFC] GitHub Survey - Please review

On 19 August 2016 at 13:15, Hahnfeld, Jonas <Hahnfeld at
itc.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> IMO this looks good overall, I think the questions are balanced and
don't
> encourage any direction themselves.
> One minor point while reading (as a non-native speaker): "production
product"
> sounds weird :D
It does... Changed...

> There may be a difference between "impact on developer workflow"
(long-term)
> and "one-time impact" (e.g. reconfiguring build bots).
> Maybe we can duplicate the question and add an option "No (one-time)
impact"
> to the second one?
That's a good point. Though, I assume everyone will have "some"
ont-time impact, and the real problem is if this is going to be
impossible (or at least very hard) for people to work with Git in the
long term goal.

Wouldn't hurt asking about the short-term impact, but maybe we
shouldn't add another free text, just a small multiple-choice one.
I've done that.

cheers,
--renato

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > There may be a difference between "impact on developer
workflow"
> (long-term)
> > and "one-time impact" (e.g. reconfiguring build bots).
> > Maybe we can duplicate the question and add an option "No
(one-time)
> impact"
> > to the second one?
>
> That's a good point. Though, I assume everyone will have
"some"
> ont-time impact, and the real problem is if this is going to be
> impossible (or at least very hard) for people to work with Git in the
> long term goal.
>
For people who are doing read-only access, to include llvm in the build of
some other project, the impact might be as small as a one-time changing of
the URL for the "svn checkout" in their script.

Or maybe even using "svn relocate" on a permanent checkout (and their
script doesn't need to change its "svn up" or whatever). That does
depend
on github's fake svn server output being absolutely identical to the
current svn server. I'm not sure whether that can be made true or not.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160819/cd5c2393/attachment.html>

On 19 August 2016 at 13:50, Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org>
wrote:
> For people who are doing read-only access, to include llvm in the build of
> some other project, the impact might be as small as a one-time changing of
> the URL for the "svn checkout" in their script.
For that kind of use, I believe the GitHub SVN interface will "just
work". I have tested it read-only and read-write access and my SVN
client was very happy with it.

Some people said it was a bit slow, but that should only make a
difference if you're checking out the whole thing. (svn relocate may
help, too).

But there's also the idea of changing the process to Git, which would
involve some changes to their scripts, but not a big one.

I'm more worried with huge build systems that heavily use SVN as a
core part of their infrastructure, making it a lot harder to "move to
git".

I'm expecting this number to be small nowadays...

cheers,
--renato