[llvm-dev] GitHub Survey?
Renato Golin via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Oct 14 02:17:47 PDT 2016
On 14 October 2016 at 01:16, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith
<dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
> 2. The "disk space and read-only/read-write" question (#5) directly gathers data on the main concern with monorepo, and it's still missing.
> => If we don't collect data on this, we'll have no idea whether anyone cares about the concern.
> => Sparse checkouts, which you mentioned, do not have consensus as addressing this.
> => The Git-svn mirrors on the SVN bridge would address it, but there's a concern they could disappear somehow someday.
> => But all of this is only worth hashing out if there are real users that will be affected.
> => And assuming it is worth hashing out, the kind of solution we come up with in the BoF might depend on the *number* of real, affected users.
Ok, I've changed the wording to be a bit more generic (section 4,
penultimate question).
> 3. The multi/mono hybrid question (#12) directly gathers data on the compromise proposal, and it's still missing.
> => If we can show with the survey that no one wants this, we'll save a lot of time at the BoF by knowing that ahead of time.
> => On the other hand, if many people want it, someone should think through it deeply and be prepared to answer questions about it at the BoF.
I think the argument here is that too many people were concerned about
how the mono-repo would be laid out to leave the question out.
For better or worse, it was easier to reach a consensus on the
sub-modules approach because there's only one way to do it (except the
web-hooks vs. server hooks problem).
But my point still stands: the description of that variant is
*substantially* less detailed than the other two and the concerns it
points out are very serious indeed. There are no proposals there, just
a though dump on a paragraph.
So, I think we should change this question into a slide over the
mono-repo proposal that was put forward: "If not all, how much goes
into the mono-repo?"
I tried to convey that on section 6, one of the last questions.
Let me know.
cheers,
--renato
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list