[PATCH] D24167: Moving to GitHub - Unified Proposal
Justin Lebar via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Sep 2 11:25:00 PDT 2016
jlebar added a comment.
Chris, I am really happy to work with you to make sure that you're happy that the parts of this document that are explicitly not advocating a position come across as dry and factual. I agree that parts of this document don't come across that way, and, where we're not explicitly advocating for a position, they should be changed. This was actually my explicit feedback to Mehdi when I reviewed his document, and also when he sent me this review yesterday.
But I admit to being flummoxed by what I read as rage here against the idea that we would allow advocates to explain their reasoned positions in a document posted to llvm.org. (Do you burn your California voter's guide for this reason?) Indeed, I am even more confused because the rage seems to be only aimed at the parts of this document that compare the monorepo and multirepo, but not at the parts that compare git and svn while clearly advocating for one side.
I also am really confused by the idea that somehow explaining why I think X is true prevents someone else from making up their own mind. It seems to me that *not* explaining my arguments would actually prevent people from making an informed decision.
But you're clearly very upset by this, and I don't think it is worth arguing further. Frankly I'm already feeling fight-or-flight here, and if the rhetoric escalates further, I'm afraid I won't feel welcome in this discussion at all.
Would you be amenable to a compromise, Chris? How about we link to advocacy statements from this document? Would that be acceptable to you?
More information about the llvm-commits