[PATCH] D24167: Moving to GitHub - Unified Proposal

[Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-commits]

> On 2016-Oct-12, at 15:31, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Oct 12, 2016, at 3:21 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2016-Oct-12, at 14:54, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> +compiler-rt for instance. In this way it's not different from someone who would
>>>>> +check out all the projects with SVN today.
>>>> 
>>>> This last sentence is superfluous (and it would be nice to cut this section
>>>> down a bit).
>>> 
>>> Most people (including you), think that the multi-repo structure is closer to what we have now, while I came to realize later that maybe instead the monorepo is the one closer to the current SVN structure.
>> 
>> Except I don't know anyone that checks out all the projects with SVN today (in the same repo)
> 

It's that I already LGTM'ed this, right?  I only wanted to clarify the monorepo concern pre-commit.

> Well some data: I personally do, Justin does as well, and Chandler is in between as I understood it (he has a bunch of uncommitted work-in-progress in the split-repo struct that needs to be carried over IIUC).
> 
>> .  I know it can be done, but it's not documented anywhere (even in this document), and so it just doesn't seem relevant to the discussion.
> 
> And since I’m using it, and I’m not alone, I can’t agree that this is not relevant.
> If you want me to document it, just so that you’ll consider it relevant, I can put together a quick patch. But I doubt that this was your intent with this sentence :)
> 
> (The not documented argument came up already a few weeks ago, I think should have documented it at that time to leave this behind us).

Hold on... I thought you guys were using the Git monorepo.  Are you using a large SVN checkout?

>> Put another way: the sentence comes across as, "This is just like what you do today!"  But (almost?) no one does this today…
>> 
>>> So I rather keep this sentence which balance this.
>> 
>> I think that's already clearly expressed in the "concerns about multirepo".  I don't think it's being clearly expressed here.
> 
> You insisted multiple time that properties of a variant are clearly expressed in the description of the variant, my turn!

I insist that it's not clear, and, moreover, that it's not valuable to say something if it isn't being said clearly.

The current text makes it sounds like you're referring to something that readers should be familiar with.  That's jarring unless people are actually familiar with it.
- Almost no one has committed to the Git monorepo, and most probably aren't even aware it's possible right now.
- Almost no one has committed to SVN as a monorepo, and I didn't know (until now? is that really what you mean?) that anyone actually worked this way in practise.

If you want to add some clear text somewhere saying "Git monorepo is possible today, and people are using it", then that makes sense to me (add a subtitle/paragraph/whatever).  But if that's what you're trying to express here, it's not working for me.