[PATCH] D24167: Moving to GitHub - Unified Proposal

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

> On 2016-Oct-12, at 15:59, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Oct 12, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 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?
> 
> Yes :)
> 
> It acts as a staging area for push back right now. I have in parallel:
> 
> git_monorepo/
> svn_root/
> 
> I work exclusively in the monorepo, and when I want to push back my commit, a script is applying the patches in the SVN checkout and committing upstream.
> 
>> 
>>>> 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.
> 
> OK I’ll do.

SGTM.  Might as well be as a follow-up commit though.