[llvm-dev] Add more projects into Git monorepo

Thu May 11 11:45:43 PDT 2017

Personally, I don't think it is even possible to please everyone.  While I
don't want to ignore the dissent, I also don't want to ignore the fact that
the dissent *has* been a minority, and I believe there has been more
dissent in *not* adopting monorepo as there has been to adopting monorepo.

Somewhere along the line, someone has to pull the trigger and make a
decision.  There are people who are just as inconvenienced today (which,
btw, has been a lingering inconvenience for many years in some cases) by
*not* having a mono-repo as others would be by having a mono-repo.

Discussions are only meaningful insofar as they contribute something new to
the playing field.  We have had so many discussions, surveys, talks, email
threads, experiments, etc that at this point I honestly don't know how else
to meaningfully contribute something new?

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:36 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> 2017-05-10 19:21 GMT-07:00 Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com>:
>
>>
>> On May 9, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-05-09 9:03 GMT-07:00 David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>:
>>
>>> On 9 May 2017, at 16:59, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I'm not sure if you really read the last sentence of what I wrote, or
>>> if you followed the previous discussions on the plan here?
>>> > At this point I believe that this concern is non-existent per the
>>> read-only individual repo.
>>>
>>> The read-only repo is only useful if you don’t intend to contribute
>>> stuff back upstream.
>>
>>
>> Your point was about CI...
>> (unless you're working on some CI that would fix bugs and send PR?)
>>
>>
>>> There is no convenient workflow for cloning libunwind / libc++ /
>>> libwhatever, hacking on it, and sending pull requests.
>>>
>>
>> We considered git-svn for this though.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > We can leave it there :)
>>> > There have been extensive discussions, a BoF, and documentations,
>>> please refer you to these first (granted we haven't really talked about
>>> libunwind, but I'm not sure many people will be strongly opposed to
>>> libunwind having its separate life).
>>>
>>> There have been multiple discussions, and the conclusion from all that I
>>> have participated in was that projects that are tightly version locked to
>>> LLVM should be in the monorepo, everything else should be separate.
>>> Apparently there is now a plan underway to not do this and to make life
>>> harder for people who work on the projects that are not version locked to
>>> LLVM.
>>>
>>
>> We have a different understanding.
>>
>>
>> I feel like I need to take a minute here to voice my supreme frustration
>> with the way this discussion has gone and this small sentence captures it
>> entirely.
>>
>>
> You'll have to elaborate what is wrong with this sentence, because I'm
> basically saying that I disagree there was a consensus or a conclusion on
> what goes exactly in the monorepo, which is what David was claiming. I
> believe the exact set of projects was punted to future discussions.
>
> I also happen to know that some important stakeholders are strongly
> against not having the full toolchain together (i.e. libc++ has to be with
> clang for example) and would strongly prefer status quo (and staying on
> SVN) to having half of the toolchain together but not as a whole (not that
> they necessarily have to have their way, but that's another important
> weight in the balance).
>
>
>
>> From beginning to end these git migration conversations have involved a
>> whole lot of people talking past each other and a lot of assumptions that
>> are not shared. Many of us are very much not on the same page. The only
>> thing that we had a significant consensus on was that we'd like to move to
>> GitHub. Other than that we have more disagreement than agreement.
>>
>
> Sure.
>
>
>
>> We do not have consensus on an all-in-one monorepo,
>>
>
> Yes. But:
> 1) We don't have a consensus on anything but "we should go to GitHub" at
> this point.
> 2) Please acknowledge that the opposite is true as well (which is what my
> sentence above what answering to!).
>
>
>> and any notion that we do is ignoring the significant dissent. There was
>> less disagreement with a mono-repo that had only tightly coupled projects,
>> but that itself is hard to nail down and define, and there are still many
>> people (myself included) who prefer the multi-repo solution.
>>
>> Mehdi, I don't know if it is your intent, but in many places in this
>> thread you sound as if this decision has been made and the community is
>> fully supporting your decision. Please don't do that.
>>
>
> This is your reading, this is not what I wrote. Please don't
> over-interpret. See at the end of this email for a reminder on where I
> stand right now.
>
>
>> It would be nice if as a community we considered the concerns of our
>> members instead of offhand dismissing them.
>>
>
> The only thing I dismiss is what is not supported by any facts:
>
> Example from this thread: "the CI for libunwind will have to checkout
> extra stuff" -> "individual repositories are addressing this". Unless I
> have new extra informations that I can take into account about why the
> individual repo are not addressing this specific exact concern, yes you can
> consider that I'm dismissive this "concern".
> Also, not that expressing a disagreement with your opinion is not the same
> thing as dismissing it though, so please don't put everything in the same
> bucket. If you have any issue, let's be specific.
>
>
>>
>> I think we should spend some time discussing and understanding the needs
>> of our corporate contributors and the needs of the other open source
>> projects that contribute to, use, and distribute LLVM. I believe that
>> disregarding the concerns of communities like the BSD and Linux communities
>> would be a severe detriment to the LLVM project.
>>
>
> At this point, I believe I spent a considerable amount of time
> discussing/experimenting/prototype/considering scenarios/etc. I don't mean
> this to say that I have all the knowledge of all the possible situations,
> or that my personal opinion would matter more, but I somehow feel that your
> paragraph above is negating the time and energy I made into accumulating
> all the elements and engaging in discussions with all possible parties
> interested into it.
>
> As a reminder, the current status today and my position is the same as in
> January: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109015.html
> ; which can be summarized as: "At some point, if the experiment is
> conclusive, we should be able to build a larger majority and hopefully
> reach a consensus that the proposed prototype can be considered viable for
> development and start planning the actual committing changes."
> There's a lot of uncertainty there, I never announced any "decision"
> (which I never pretended to be in my hands).
>
> See also Chris' answer for a more explicit version:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109115.html
>
> Best,
>
> --
> Mehdi
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170511/8a073c17/attachment.html>