[llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories?
James Molloy via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jul 27 11:38:01 PDT 2016
Firstly I really appreciate you taking the mantle and pushing this forward!
Like Justin B I'll be bowing out after this.
I thought it important because I don't believe you'll build consensus in
this thread. I think the best that can be hoped for is opposition to give
up fighting; advantages are to be had on both sides by different types of
user and we've seen that many times in this thread.
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 19:33, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote:
> Maybe we can hit the pause button on this issue of a survey vs
> consensus-building. I think it's a distraction from the main issue
> here, and it makes it harder for everyone else to participate in the
> That said, I really do think that perspectives like Justin B's below
> are important. That is, if people have a problem with the monorepo,
> it is useful they can join the thread and say why. That's true
> regardless of whether we use a survey or not.
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:29 AM, James Molloy via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > That's why we collate responses and provide summaries and proposals,
> > is what Renato did. There are a lot of technical deep dives on this
> > that make it difficult to keep track of where consensus is going.
> > Besides which we surely care about all our users and developers, and not
> > just the loud ones or ones with enough cajones to chip in on a massive
> > thread full of big names without fear of embarrassing themselves. We also
> > surely don't want a slew of '+1 to the proposal 93 replies ago'; how does
> > that help anyone decide if consensus is reached?
> > How can you decide that people who don't see this thread don't get the
> > chance to vote? It's summer time and people *will* be on vacation. Do you
> > expect them to find this in their inbox when they come back and read
> > every response? This is not realistic.
> > James
> > On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 19:23, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev
> > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> On 7/27/2016 1:04 PM, James Molloy via llvm-dev wrote:
> >> > This thread is not particularly inviting. It has over 300 replies at
> >> > time of writing and we don't all have the time to delve into such a
> >> > quagmire. That doesn't mean our opinions are worthless.
> >> It doesn't take reading all responses to see where the discussion is
> >> going. Important decisions take time to make. People took a lot of
> >> effort in this thread to present their ideas and to address various
> >> concerns. I bet they all have other things to do as well.
> >> -Krzysztof
> >> --
> >> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> >> hosted by The Linux Foundation
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev