similar to: GitHub Survey - Results

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

Hi all, As you probably know, we’ll meet on the first day of the conference, right before lunch, to discuss about a possible move of our hosting to Git/GitHub, and consider the various options and associated tradeoff (Schedule entry here: http://sched.co/8Yzj <http://sched.co/8Yzj> ) I’d like to remind you that the detail of the proposals and the variants is online here:

> 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 >

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 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 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 Oct 13, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 13 October 2016 at 20:45, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> This is a point of contention and a concern that Chris voiced about the monorepo. It should be in the survey. > > A lot of concerns were voiced on the discussion, not all of them here. > >

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 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

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.

> 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 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

> 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 Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 10:22 Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I want to restart this discussion. There seemed to be support for this, > but we got held up trying to decide on the appropriate set of tags to > use to classify issues. > > I propose that we move forward with this proposal and disable creation of > new bugs in

Hi All, I've listed the current topics of interest below, along with some notes on each. We only have 30 minutes so we'll barely scratch the surface of these during the BoF itself. My main aims are for you to meet each other, identify potential areas of collaboration, identify things that I can do to unblock you, and get the ball rolling on some conversations that we can continue on the

> 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 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

Call for Talks, Tutorials, BoFs, Panels, Student Research Competition, and More! All developers and users of LLVM and related sub-projects are invited to present at the 2017 LLVM Developers’ Meeting. We are looking for the following proposals: Technical Talks (~30 minutes): - On LLVM Infrastructure,Clang and all related sub-projects - On uses of LLVM in academia or industry - On new projects

> On Jan 17, 2017, at 7:24 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 17 Jan 2017, at 01:17, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> - Monorepo is the “natural” way to use git. Submodules are possible to use, but add significant complexity. > > Having used submodules in a couple of projects, I’ve not

Call for Talks, Tutorials, BoFs, Panels, Student Research Competition, and More! All developers and users of LLVM and related sub-projects are invited to present at the 2018 LLVM Developers’ Meeting <https://llvm.org/devmtg/2018-10/>. We are looking for the following proposals: Technical Talks (30 minutes including Q&A): - On LLVM Infrastructure,Clang and all related sub-projects - On