[llvm-dev] GitHub Survey?

Renato Golin via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Sep 1 05:44:10 PDT 2016


It's 1st of September, and we don't have the document nor the survey
ready. With the US meeting on 3-4 November, that leaves us only 2
months to do everything, and I'm not sure we'll be able to if we delay
much more.

Being the devil's advocate and hoping this doesn't spiral down
(again), there were a few pertinent questions left unanswered from the
previous threads...

1. How much vote, how much survey?

Most people are in agreement that a balance has to be struck, though
there is no clear consensus on how much of each.

The concerns raised were:
 * As it is now, we may not have enough information on why, just what
people want.
 * Without multiple choice questions, it'll be too hard to infer what
people want.
 * With too many questions, statistical relevance will be diluted and
spread too thin.

FWIW, I'm personally happy with the current format. But this is not about me.

2. How much information do we want?

Chris' point on the other thread is that he wants a lot more
information, so we can derive all sorts of correlations and drive
other decisions, not just GitHub. I think this is a valid point, but
it depends on the time scale.

The concerns are:
 * If we want to have enough meaningful results by the US LLVM, we
need to get it online ASAP
 * It'll take months to converge on a long list of questions, publish,
get feedback, analyse it all
 * The result will be more general, so we only do it once, but won't
help the GitHub choice
 * Free text interpretation is fuzzy and easy to bias, concrete
decisions need concrete information

3. The current GitHub document

We need to update the current document to have both options:
sub-modules and mono-repo, with an exact description of what they

The sub-modules discussion has finished with a solid proposal, though
there aren't many example use cases, which makes it hard to
demonstrate. But the mono-repo discussion was still around which
repositories belong to the mono-repo and which don't, and what do we
do about the others.

So, the next steps on this task are:
 * Rename the file to GitHub.rst (since it'll have both proposals in there)
 * Update the sub-modules part, adding example use cases
 * Insert the whole mono-repo proposal, with what's in and out + examples
 * Update the migration plan to cope with either option (should be
similar anyway)

==  Next Steps

I'm attaching the pre-survey dump, with an anonymised CSV file (no
names or emails), plus a number of pictures of the pie charts. We'll
put it up in a web document to look nicer with the official survey.

So, the next steps are:

1. Make sure everyone is happy with the survey, and change it if necessary.
1.a Make sure the results are in a format that people expect / can work with.

2. Make the appropriate changes to the proposal document.
2.a Review, reach consensus, approve, publish.

3. Put the survey online, this time for real, deleting all current
responses first.
3.a *Everyone* that has filled it already will have to fill it again, sorry.

4. We'll need a deadline, so people feel compelled to answer sooner.
4.a When the deadline is reached, collate the results in a CSV file+PNGs.
4.b A group of people (volunteers? foundation?) will analyse the data
and decide how to present.
4.c I volunteer to write the final document, with their final blessing
before publishing.
4.d Hopefully before the US LLVM (4 Nov), we can have both the
proposal and survey results.

5. At the US LLVM, hold a BoF / Panel on the GitHub move.
5.a Use the proposal and survey results as a starting point.
5.b Gather the feedback, create a third document (I volunteer again).

6. Someone(s) take(s) the final decision...

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GitHubSurvey.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 262719 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160901/9e6ffa83/attachment-0001.zip>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list