[PATCH] D24167: Moving to GitHub - Unified Proposal

[Chris Bieneman via llvm-commits]

beanz added a subscriber: beanz.
beanz added a comment.

I want to share some very high level thoughts that I have. I'll provide more specific feedback on portions of the document later, but I want to get my high level opinion out first.

I think much of this is very good and valuable, but I want to suggest a slight adjustment in format. I've noticed that your document starts off very much like the one Renato wrote. I think we should take those segments and put them in a common document and link to the alternate proposals from there. I see us having four distinctly different documents.

(1) Git/GitHub proposal
(2) Mono-repo proposal
(3) Multi-repo proposal
(4) Proposal comparison

One benefit I see of separating the document is that it allows us to limit bike-shedding to specific topics in each document. I think that will make the conversation and review more manageable.

The Git/GitHub proposal should focus on answering the common questions between both proposals:

- Why should we move to Git?
- Why should we move to GitHub?
- What are the costs of migrating to Git that are independent of the mono/multi proposals?

The mono and multi repo proposals should be written to describe the proposals without referring to each other. The idea being that it is *way* easier to write neutral documents that will allow people to form their own opinions if the documents don't refer to each other. I think both proposals should answer the following questions:

(1) How are the repositories hosted and structured?
(2) How do common workflows translate to the new git structure?
(3) What infrastructure needs to be built, updated, or maintained?
(4) How will we migrate to this? (both in infrastructure and for contributors)

I think that this is a topic many people (myself included) have gotten very passionate about, and it is exceedingly difficult to be neutral about the opposing proposal. I think that wherever possible we should avoid the issue entirely by just not mentioning the other proposal at all. Leave it to others to describe their proposal.

The Before/After portion of your document we should break into a separate document comparing the two approaches. I think what you wrote is a good start, and I'm happy to iterate on it with you. I think we should aim to produce an opinion neutral document that can allow people to form their own opinions. I believe we can use formatting to make it easy to visually compare the commands in answers (for example side-by-side tables), and we should try very hard to allow readers to draw their own conclusions.

Thank you for all your hard work putting this together,
-Chris


https://reviews.llvm.org/D24167