similar to: GitHub Survey?

> 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

> 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 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 >

Hi all- I was wondering if anyone knew what the status/schedule of the SVN to git/github transition was? I thought I saw that at the November meeting it was agreed upon, but I'm not sure I saw any progress since? Thanks, Erich

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 Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The main outcome of the BoF had the dev meeting was that we agree’d that moving to GitHub was the best choice forward for LLVM (IIRC only one person in the room expressed concerned about GitHub, but he said he had personal grief with them and nothing specific for LLVM). > > The unknown that

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 2:15 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 Jul 28, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote: > > Thanks again for your thoughts, Chris. > >> As a straw man I would suggest the following criteria for inclusion into the mono-repo: >> >> (1) Projects in the mono-repo must be tightly coupled to specific versions or commits of other projects in the mono-repo > > I'm fine

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

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 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

> On Jul 28, 2016, at 12:05 PM, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote: > >>> The decision of whether or not to include these projects >>> affects only read-write consumers of these projects -- of which there >>> are relatively few people. >> >> Maybe there are few, but the impact is non-insignificant. Also I think the opinions of the

On 19 August 2016 at 18:20, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > The one time cost of the mono-repo proposal is drastically different > than that of the multi-repo. True. But maybe not as different as from one company / project to another. I'm assuming some people will suffer a lot more than others on either choice. > I already use git, but depending on how

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

> On Jan 17, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > > - As Medhi says, according to surveys and discussions in forums like the LLVM Dev Meeting BoF, most people who care are in favor of mono-repo. > > From the online surveys, I think the split was roughly 50:50. > > I don’t know on what data you’re basis this on. I looked very closely

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.

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

> (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