[llvm-dev] [RFC] GitHub Survey - Please review

Renato Golin via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Aug 19 14:02:31 PDT 2016

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 filesystem (since I currently check out multiple repos
> rooted at llvm), or if we do a multirepo I probably need to learn some
> new commands to associate llvm and clang repos (rather than using git
> svn find-rev). If we do something where there's a monorepo of some of
> the stuff but not all, I probably have to adapt to things from each.

My point is: either way, you'll have to "change your workflow". For
some people workflow A will be "less change", for others, it will be
workflow B. For some others still, neither A nor B will be easier than
Git-SVN, or just SVN.

My other point was: *a lot* of people already "adapt" their workflow,
so capturing how much each option will make to each person is less
important than catching how much *any* change will mean to *most*

To capture and weigh each edge of a graph with hundreds of nodes will
need a very smart AI. But I can do it reasonably well with a dozen or
so on my own. I don't have the time nor the expertise to build such an
AI, and it would ultimately have uncertainties, which could very well
amount to the same ones we get with less, imprecise questions.

This whole exercise has already deviated the focus and work of *A LOT*
of people in the community. I'm trying to make it less painful.

So, I think it's perfectly acceptable to lose some of the semantics on
the questions if we get the gist of what the community wants.

makes sense?


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list