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

[Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev]

On 8/19/16 4:50 PM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev wrote:
> Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> writes:
>> 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*
>> people.
>>
>> 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?
>
> My point is still unaddressed - I wouldn't be able to answer this
> question as phrased. If we go with the multi-repo (as currently
> proposed) my answer is "very little change to workflow". If we go with
> most of the mono-repo proposals so far, my answer is "major change to
> workflow". If the survey is just "what does switching to git do to your
> workflow?", I simply can't answer at all.

Not sure if this has already been mentioned elsewhere, but I think 
there's another important aspect to this: a big change in workflow can 
make things better/worse/same , but measuring the size of change doesn't 
tell you whether that change is good or not. Both the effort required to 
change, and the desirability of the end state are important here.


Jon

> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

-- 
Jon Roelofs
jonathan at codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded