<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Renato,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Let me be clear about my motivation on this particular question: I don’t like this variant, and I don’t want us to extra time discussing it at the BoF because we have enough things to go through.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But that is only my personal opinion, and I avoid driving solely on my personal opinion, which is why this variant is present in the document.</div><div class="">I believe data and facts are and the only way is to confirm whether or not it would actually be a waste of time to discuss it extensively at the BoF, so we *need* to ask about it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This is why, for the sake of “let’s optimize our limited time” at the BoF, I want to see this question in the survey.</div><div class=""><div class="">If the survey shows that a significant amount of people have interest in this variant, then we should allocate more time.</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For the exact same reason, this question is critical:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">5. Please categorize how you interact with upstream.<br class="">- I need read/write access, and I have limited disk space.<br class="">- I need read/write access, but a 1GB clone doesn't scare me.<br class="">- I only need read access.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Yes, the survey is longer, folks will have a few more checkboxes to select, I’m perfectly fine with this if it may save 5-10 min of discussion at the BoF (Between 10% and 20% of our allocated time).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">— </div><div class="">Mehdi</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">PS:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">About your previous email, I think you are making a lot of claims that I believe are factually incorrect.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But because you’re presenting this third variant as being proposed by a separate group, the so-called “monorepo group”, let me start by asking who answered "I personally feel two is minimum, three is good, four is too much.” when someone said "I want to put in my vote in favor of having a survey that takes into account multiple different approaches."</div><div class="">(Answer: <a href="http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/103059.html" class="">http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/103059.html</a> )</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Then, we couldn’t converge on the monorepo, and this “third” proposal was a compromise to address the concerns of some folks. </div><div class="">But guess who started the discussion about this variant? <a href="http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/102667.html" class="">http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/102667.html</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 13, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Renato Golin <<a href="mailto:renato.golin@linaro.org" class="">renato.golin@linaro.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">On 13 October 2016 at 23:03, Mehdi Amini <<a href="mailto:mehdi.amini@apple.com" class="">mehdi.amini@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">I don’t see how it is relevant, it is presented in the document, in its own section, just like the other variants. I don’t see any reason asking about it.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">The deal, from the beginning, was that we'd restrict ourselves to one<br class="">proposal, and make that count. It didn't work, so a second one was<br class="">created by a different group.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>“Different group” does not capture the overlap. You present it like two separate groups, which I believe is factually incorrect.</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">Both reviews happened in similar ways. Both sides started discussing,<br class="">then one side took over and the other gave up. Each part of the<br class="">document then became the point of view of a segregated group in our<br class="">community.<br class=""><br class="">The sub-modules group had initially many designs, but only one<br class="">survived.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">It would be unfair</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I totally disagree with this statement.</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> if the mono-repo group</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I don’t know who are you talking about, can you clarifying what is “the mono-repo group”? I believe this your own personal view, but .</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> had multiple<br class="">designs of their own</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>This is another issue: this variant is *hybrid* and is not part of the monorepo. It is a separate proposal that is a compromise. </div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">, because that dilutes the importance of the other<br class="">group's work.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I don’t agree with this either.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I don’t see the content of the document as here “to defend the work of any group”.</div><div>This whole proposal, with the multiple variants, is a proposal for us as a community. So that we get the better.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>The monorepo proposal takes on many ideas developed by people who spent time brainstorming on the multi-repo, that does not make it the proposal of one group against the other.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">If you want to propose a third model, we'll have to do in the same<br class="">way: start over, with a new document, and discuss that.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I’m not sure what’s missing in my previous emails: have you read the document? </div><div><br class=""></div><div><img height="480" width="298" apple-width="yes" apple-height="yes" apple-inline="yes" id="F07F68FB-4628-4740-95E7-4A7BF03DA38E" src="cid:B01DF19B-5CC3-4665-961F-F7D53D93B5BA@apple.com" class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">The discussion that happened in the second proposal doesn't count,<br class="">because the first group wasn't participating any more, </div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>This is again factually incorrect.</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">for the same<br class="">reasons that the second group didn't participate on the final steps of<br class="">the first proposal.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>This is also factually incorrect.</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">— </div><div class="">Mehdi</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>