similar to: [RFC] GitHub Survey - Please review

We have free text answers for both groups of answers, usage and impact. People can write whatever they want there. I don't see what the problem is... Cheers, Renato On 24 Aug 2016 8:01 p.m., "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 4:23 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > >

Hi, > On Aug 17, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 4, 2016, at 6:58 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi Tanya, >> >> Do you have an idea on how we'll put up this survey online? > > I can put it in

Folks, It's 1st of September, and we don't have the document nor the survey ready. With the US meeting on 3-4 November, that leaves us only 2 months to do everything, and I'm not sure we'll be able to if we delay much more. Being the devil's advocate and hoping this doesn't spiral down (again), there were a few pertinent questions left unanswered from the previous

On 8 September 2016 at 19:10, Chris Bieneman <cbieneman at apple.com> wrote: > My personal preference would be for the decision makers to be either a > committee of developers or the LLVM Foundation board, and I would prefer if > the survey were crafted to provide them with information to inform a > decision, rather than a dictation of a decision. Hi Chris, Those are very good

> 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

> On 2016-Oct-13, at 11:23, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > 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

Hi Tanya, Do you have an idea on how we'll put up this survey online? The other thread on the foundation list had some good proposals, but I don't know how we'll make sure we follow all of them when we actually publish it. I'd like to have some process going before early Sep, so we can just "put it up" as soon as all the proposals are finished. Some questions... Q1.

Hi Duncan, > […] > 2. Those working on projects *outside* the monolithic repo will get the downsides of both: a monolithic repo that they are only using parts of, and multiple repos that are somehow version-locked. > > 3. For many (most?) developers, changing to a monolithic git repo is a *bigger* workflow change than switching to separate git repos. Many people (and at least some

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 11:03 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > | 6. How important is cross-project blame, grep, etc.? >   <> > I don't understand "cross-project blame" as it works on one file at a time? True, not straightforward blame. My workflow when trying to track the history of some code involves frequently

On 9 September 2016 at 19:05, Chris Bieneman <cbieneman at apple.com> wrote: > I think having the survey contain a question on which solution the respondent prefers is good, but I feel it is very limited. Well, the current survey is more than just one question... > In general I believe there are three possible decisions that could come from this. Either we go with one of the two

> On Aug 19, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 19 August 2016 at 19:38, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: >> Let people name a representative person that maintains the infrastructure of their group/organisation? > > So, a radio button to choose "me" vs "my company/project"? Or let them >

> (2) If I’m stuck using git-svn I kinda feel like there is no real point in changing anything. No real point *for you specifically*. But the vast majority of people would not be stuck using git-svn. And in addition the LLVM project would not be stuck using svn, with all the baggage, hosting issues, workflow issues (for people other than you), etc. The bar by which this proposal should be

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 13, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com <mailto:dexonsmith at apple.com>> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 2016-Oct-13, at 11:23, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at

> On Aug 9, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Pete Cooper via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 9, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Justin Lebar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >>> (2) If I’m stuck using git-svn I kinda feel like there is no real point in changing anything. >> >>

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 11:56 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Duncan, > > I don't understand your concerns. > > First, the choice between sub-modules and mono-repo has been put > forward as the only two choices because people felt that, if we let it > open, we'd have too many different implementation details and we'd >

> I think it might be good to draw a clearer line between the > contributor and their organization. I suspect Apple's infrastructure > will be far more affected by the change than I will personally and > there's not really a way to fit that information into the current > survey. > > Tim. Excellent point. Sony's infrastructure pain would be significant to those

On 19 August 2016 at 19:35, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > I think you misunderstood what I meant here. Whether "moving to git" > will affect my workflow depends very much on "how we're moving to > git". That's exactly what I understood. :) > For example, if we do a monorepo, I may now need to lay code out > differently on my

I’m just now catching up on this massive thread after being on vacation last week, and I have a few thoughts I’d like to share. First and foremost please don’t consider lack of dissent on the thread as presence of consensus. 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. As supporting

Renato, Let me be clear about my motivation on this particular question: I don’t like this variant, and I don’t want us to extra time discussing it at the BoF because we have enough things to go through. But that is only my personal opinion, and I avoid driving solely on my personal opinion, which is why this variant is present in the document. I believe data and facts are and the only way is to

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 2:54 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 13 October 2016 at 22:25, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. In case I wasn’t clear before, >> I’m not interested in any way “to do a third” proposal. > > Ok, so we only mention two. No we mention what’s in the