[PATCH] D24167: Moving to GitHub - Unified Proposal

[Mehdi Amini via llvm-commits]

> On Oct 12, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 2016-Oct-12, at 14:54, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> + * Some concerns have been raised that having a single repository would be an
>>>> +   overhead for those that have interest in only a single repository. This is
>>>> +   addressed by keeping the single-subproject Git mirrors for each project just
>>>> +   as we do today. For contributors that need read/write access the
>>>> +   :ref:`GitHub SVN bridge <git-svn-mirror>`  allows to contribute to a single
>>>> +   sub-project the same way as today.
>>> 
>>> Let me try again to reword this, since it's a little awkward.
>>> - I'll use "overhead" instead of "burden".
>>> - I understand your point about eliding the Git mirror with the SVN bridge.
>> 
>> There are two classes of users:
>> 
>> - one is the folks that develop libcxx
>> - the other is the people downstream that just integrate libcxx.
>> 
>> Only the first class needs commit access, so the concern here does not apply to the second class.
>> The distinction is important because If we quantify “how many users” are affected by this, in the past Chris was adding the second class as well.
>> 
>> You reworded paragraph is not spelling it out clearly enough. What about:
>> 
>> * Using the monolithic repository may add overhead for those contributing to a
>>  standalone subproject, particularly on runtimes like libcxx and compiler-rt
>>  that don't rely on LLVM; currently, a fresh clone of libcxx is only 15MB (vs.
>>  1GB for the monorepo), and the commit rate of LLVM may cause more frequent 
>>  `git push` collisions when upstreaming. Affected contributors can continue to
>>  use the SVN bridge or the single-subproject Git mirrors with git-svn for
>>  read-write. Note that this is not a concern for downstream consumers that
>>  don't need commit access.
> 
> Your wording makes it sounds like downstream consumers that don't need commit access should ignore the whole bullet.

Yes, that is what I mean.

>  That's not true, if they care about the size of their checkout.

> 
> Maybe you can split this up to satisfy both of us and keep it clear?

OK 

> 
>    * Using the monolithic repository may add overhead for those *contributing* to a standalone subproject.... (something very similar to one of my wordings)
> 
>    * Using the monolithic repository may add overhead for those *integrating* a standalone subproject, even if they aren't contributing to it, due to the same disk space concern as the point above.  Affected users can rely on the single-subproject Git mirrors.
> 
>