[llvm-dev] GitHub Survey?

Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
Thu, 13 Oct 2016 18:23:49 -0000

Hi,

Thanks a lot Duncan, I really like this! I totally support adopting this scheme
now. See inline a few quite minor comments.

Renato: are you still interested and available now to set-up the survey? We
should close on this *this week*.


> On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at
apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2016-Sep-18, at 09:51, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> After feedback from Chris and Mehdi, I have added one long text answer
>> to *each* critical questions (impact on productivity), so that people
>> can extend their reasoning.
>>
>> But I have not made them compulsory, so that people that don't know
>> much about or don't have any problem don't feel compelled to
expand on
>> nothing.
>>
>>
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc2PBeHW-meULpCOpmbGK1yb2qX8yzcQBtT4nqNF05vSv69WA/viewform
>>
>> The bottom line is, answers with more substance will be taken more
>> seriously than those without, but the numbers should also tell us
>> something.
>>
>> For example, if 9/10 of the answers are "we don't care",
than the
>> other 1/10 will have less weight than if it was 1/2, but still
>> important to any decision.
>>
>> Can we go live with what we have now?
>>
>> Mehdi, how's the document? Can we get that online so I can change
the
>> header of the survey?
>
> Hi Renato,
>
> Thanks very much for putting this together.
>
> I think the proposal document is almost finished now.  Since I ended up
reviewing it pretty thoroughly, I've gained a bit of understanding about the
concerns we need input on.
>
> The survey is a great start, but the final page isn't quite addressing
the concerns in the final proposal.  I'm not sure it asks the right
questions to focus the conversation at the BoF.
>
> Firstly, I'm concerned that the questions focus on:
> - what's good for the individuals responding, instead of what they
think is best for the LLVM project; and
> - how much pain the transition would cause, instead of what they think the
right final state is.
>
> Secondly, I'm worried about this question: "How does the choice
between a single repository with all projects and the use of sub-modules impact
your usage of Git?"  I'm not sure we'll good signal from this;
it's essentially a vote on the two variants, but it doesn't force the
respondent to think about the specific issues.  I'd rather find a way to ask
about the specific concerns raised in the document.
>
> Thirdly, I'm worried that the follow-ups talk about
"preferred" and "non-preferred" instead of
"multirepo" and "monorepo".  This makes data-mining
non-trivial (because the meaning depends on previous answers) and increases the
chance of respondent confusion.
>
> I spent some time today thinking through what set of questions would get us
the data we want.
> - I've focused on the main concerns about (and benefits of) the two
variants.
> - I've referred to the multirepo and monorepo by name (consistently) in
questions asking about them.  This ensures that people know exactly what
they're answering.
> - I've added specific questions about how people plan to use the
multirepo and monorepo, so that we know which tooling is most important (and
also to determine how worried we should be about some of the concerns).
> - I've moved the "vote"-like question to the end to force
respondents to think through the issues first.  I've also restricted
"the vote" to "the ideal project setup", so we can clearly
separate that from "transition pain".  (I'm still not sure the
vote will have much value, but it doesn't hurt.)
>
> Here are my suggested questions; feedback welcome:
>
> ----
>
> 1. How do you use LLVM?
> // as is
>
> 2. Which projects do you contribute to / use?
> // as is

For this last question, I’d keep a check-boxes list with an optional blank
field. It seems that the list of projects being limited, checking boxes is both
easier for the people answering and for us doing the data-mining.
(What Renato has set-up looks good to me here)


>
> 3. Use this field to expand on your usage, if necessary
> // as is
>
> 4. How often do you work on a small LLVM sub-project without using a
checkout of LLVM itself?
> - Always.
> - Most of the time.
> - Sometimes.
> - Never.
>
> 5. Please categorize how you interact with upstream.
> - I need read/write access, and I have limited disk space.
> - I need read/write access, but a 1GB clone doesn't scare me.
> - I only need read access.
>
> 6. How important is cross-project blame, grep, etc.?
> - Vital.  I already use SVN/monorepo/custom-tooling to accomplish this.
> - Extremely.  It should be easy enough that everyone does it by default.
> - Somewhat.  I would use it if it were easy, but it's just nice to
have.
> - Not at all.  Anyone who cares can write their own tooling.
>
> 7. Single-commit cross-project refactoring designs away a class of build
failures and simplifies making API changes.  How important is it?
> - Vital.  I already use SVN/monorepo/custom-tooling to accomplish this.
> - Extremely.  It should be easy enough that everyone does it by default.
> - Somewhat.  I would use it if it were easy, but it's just nice to
have.
> - Not at all.  Anyone who cares can write their own tooling.
>
> 8. The multirepo variant provides read-only umbrella repository to
coordinate commits between the split sub-project repositories using Git
submodules.  Assuming multirepo gets adopted, how do you expect to use the
umbrella?
> // checkboxes:
> + Actively contribute tooling improvements to improve it.
> + Integrate it into our downstream fork.
> + Use it for upstream contributions.
> + Use it as the primary interface development environment.
> + Use it for bisection.
>
> 9. If multirepo is adopted, how do you plan to contribute to upstream?
> - Using Git submodules.
> - Using the Git repos directly.
> - Using the SVN bridges.
> - n/a: I don't contribute.

Can you clarify what “Using Git submodules” mean?
Since the umbrella is read-only, it is not clear to me.
Removing this first answer and keeping the others makes sense to me on the other
hand.


>
> 10. The monorepo variant provides read/write access to sub-projects via an
SVN bridge and git-svn.  Contributors will have the option to continue using
repositories split on project boundaries.  Assuming monorepo gets adopted, how
do you plan to contribute?
> - I'll use the monorepo as soon as it's possible, even before
it's canonical.
> - I'll use the monorepo as soon as it's canonical.
> - I'll transition to monorepo eventually.
> - I'll use the SVN bridge on separated sub-projects forever.
> - I'll use a Git mirror (and/or git-svn) on separated sub-projects
forever.
> - n/a: I don't contribute.
>
> 11. If monorepo is adopted, how do you plan to integrate it downstream?
> - We already use monorepo.
> - We'll switch to pulling from monorepo during the transition period.
> - We'll switch to pulling from monorepo eventually.
> - We'll integrate from the SVN bridge forever.
> - We'll integrate from the split sub-project Git mirror forever.
> - n/a: There is no downstream.
>
> 12. The multi/mono hybrid variant merges some sub-projects, but leaves
runtimes in separate repositories using the umbrella to tie them together.  Is
this the best or worst of both worlds?
> - This is great.  Native cross-project refactoring, without penalizing
runtime-only developers.
> - Whatever.  I'll deal with it.
> - This is terrible.  All the transition pain of monorepo, without the
advantages.
>
> 13. If multirepo is adopted, how much pain will there be in your
transition?
> - Nothing consequential.
> - A little; but it'll be fine.
> - A lot; but it'll get done somehow.
> - Too much; I/we may stop contributing to LLVM.
>
> 14. If monorepo is adopted, how much pain will there be in your transition?
> - Nothing consequential.
> - A little; but it'll be fine.
> - A lot; but it'll get done somehow.
> - Too much; I/we may stop contributing to LLVM.

For the two previous question, I’d add an answer “n/a: I don’t contribute”.
(We keep readonly views in both cases, not clear to me how it affects
non-contributors).

—
Mehdi


>
> 15. If we could go back in time and restart the project with today's
technologies, which repository scheme would be best for the LLVM project?
> - CVS.
> - Subversion repository with split sub-projects
(<sub-project>/trunk), with git-svn.
> - Subversion repository as a single project (trunk/<sub-project>),
with git-svn.
> - Git: multirepo variant.
> - Git: monorepo variant.
> - Git: multi/mono hybrid variant.
> - Other.
>
> 16. Other comments.
> // Open text field.
>
> ----
>
> Thanks again for your hard work on this!
>
> Duncan
>
> P.S. I think there's a bug on in the survey (or maybe my browser).
I'm seeing some stray "If responding for a" text at the top.  See
the PDF I've attached here.
>
> <Screen Shot 2016-10-12 at 16.16.05.png.pdf>
>>
>>
>> We only have a month and a bit now...
>>
>> cheers,
>> --renato
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
<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/20161013/1aab216a/attachment-0001.html>