[llvm-dev] Git Transition status?

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

On 13 January 2017 at 21:37, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> - My reading of the survey is that the monorepo has a significant lead.

That was not my understanding, but we shouldn't be arguing over small
differences in percentages. We had enough of that on both sides of the
Atlantic already in 2016.


> - My understanding of the dynamic of the discussions and question during the
> BoF is that monorepo has a significant lead, is likely to satisfy more
> people, and has a very small number of people concerned about it. On the
> other hand many people have strong feeling about the multirepo.

My understanding is that people were happy with the mono-repo as long
as it had the right balance between what's in the mono-repo and what's
left out.

That break down hasn't reached a consensus yet.


> Considering all the current tradeoffs, it is likely that we will move-on
> with a monorepo, even if there are no guarantee or decision made at this
> point.

I wouldn't start betting on the likelihood of anything at this stage.
Right now we need to understand what's the most logical and the least
impacting split for a mono-repo.

>From what I gathered at the BoF, most people were happy with the core
(revision sync) repos in the mono and everything else out.

What that means is that they will be physically separated, which is a
very different scenario than what we have today and those issues will
have to be sorted out before any decision.

Also, not everyone agreed on the definition of "core repo".


> The path forward (already engaged) is to engage a prototype phase: we’re
> building a monorepo and trying to make it usable as much as possible,
> without making any change or building anything that would commit us to a
> monorepo (for instance we’re not gonna migrate any bots to it).

Is this anywhere we can use? Did I miss the announcement of such a project?


> I don’t have any schedule to announce, hopefully we can make it all happen
> in 2017.

There will be no schedules to announce without consensus and collaboration.

I haven't seen anything public since the BoF, and I'm a little
surprised that things are happening and not being shared in the
mailing list.

This was a task effort that multiple people have put together around
the mailing list. I don't think this should take any offline form on
the most crucial moment, which is deciding how the repo will look like
and how are we all going to interact with it.

Downstream users said "they will all eventually pay the costs" with
whatever decision upstream takes. They didn't say it was going to be
cheap (most of them said it was not), nor did they say that they'll
abide to whatever a closed group decision had formed.

This is an upstream process and needs to happen upstream, which means
the mailing list. Not socials, not IRC. This needs record, and the
mailing list is the only channel that has that feature and reaches all
developers.

cheers,
--renato