[llvm-dev] GitHub Survey?

Renato Golin via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Sep 9 12:03:42 PDT 2016

On 9 September 2016 at 19:05, Chris Bieneman <cbieneman at apple.com> wrote:
> I think having the survey contain a question on which solution the respondent prefers is good, but I feel it is very limited.

Well, the current survey is more than just one question...

> In general I believe there are three possible decisions that could come from this. Either we go with one of the two proposals, or we change nothing. Knowing how many users are already using Git speaks to the impact of a transition from SVN to Git regardless of which Git proposal, and is a useful bit of data to collect.

We have three specific questions as to what the impact of the
transition (one for each option short term plus one for long term).
Why doesn't that cover your proposal?

> Knowing this allows the decision maker(s) to weight results based on the opinions and impacts on contributors differently from the opinions and impacts on down-stream users. While I certainly don't think we should disregard downstream users, this decision will disproportionately impact contributors, so we need to take that into account.

We already have that *exact* question.

It's a multiple choice questions where you check all projects that you
work on. The pie chart means nothing to the GitHub survey per se, but
the association of that information with the repo choice and the
impact will be very valuable.

For example, if most libc++ developers prefer option X while core LLVM
developers prefer Y.

What would you suggest in addition to what's already there?

> In addition to that I believe we should actually provide a section of the survey specifically for questions that can inform the specific proposals, and improve them.

Right. I steered away from that on purpose, but I guess we can add one
free text field for each impact question, and mention that people
should laid out why this or that option is not good, and how to make
them good, in the case where it's chosen.

> For example, the mono-repo proposal currently lacks firm details on a few things, which might benefit from survey answers. For example, which projects should be included in the mono-repo, or are per-project git mirrors important.

Indeed, this is currently missing. Would that be enough to cover this
in the free-text I mention above?


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list