<div dir="ltr">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.<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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?</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:36 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Chris,<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2017-05-10 19:21 GMT-07:00 Chris Bieneman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:beanz@apple.com" target="_blank">beanz@apple.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><span class="m_1084757517690312286gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On May 9, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_1084757517690312286gmail-m_8636308110459157411Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-05-09 9:03 GMT-07:00 David Chisnall <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:David.Chisnall@cl.cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">David.Chisnall@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span>On 9 May 2017, at 16:59, Mehdi AMINI <<a href="mailto:joker.eph@gmail.com" target="_blank">joker.eph@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> 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?<br>
> At this point I believe that this concern is non-existent per the read-only individual repo.<br>
<br>
</span>The read-only repo is only useful if you don’t intend to contribute stuff back upstream. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Your point was about CI...</div><div>(unless you're working on some CI that would fix bugs and send PR?)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> There is no convenient workflow for cloning libunwind / libc++ / libwhatever, hacking on it, and sending pull requests.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We considered git-svn for this though.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<span><br>
> We can leave it there :)<br>
> 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).<br>
<br>
</span>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.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We have a different understanding.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>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.</div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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).</div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div></div><div>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.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Sure.</div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>We do not have consensus on an all-in-one monorepo,</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Yes. But:</div><div>1) We don't have a consensus on anything but "we should go to GitHub" at this point. </div><div>2) Please acknowledge that the opposite is true as well (which is what my sentence above what answering to!).</div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div> 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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>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.</div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>It would be nice if as a community we considered the concerns of our members instead of offhand dismissing them.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>The only thing I dismiss is what is not supported by any facts:</div><div><br></div><div>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".</div><div>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.<br></div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>As a reminder, the current status today and my position is the same as in January: <a href="http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109015.html" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109015.html</a> ; which can be summarized as: "<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);white-space:pre-wrap">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."</span><br></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap">There's a lot of uncertainty there, I never announced any "decision" (which I never pretended to be in my hands).</span></font></div><div><br></div><div>See also Chris' answer for a more explicit version: <a href="http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109115.html" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109115.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>--</div><div>Mehdi</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>