Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing List Status Update

[Renato Golin via lldb-dev]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 13:59, Tobias Hieta via llvm-dev <
llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> I am very active in the Discord and try my best to help people and
> while I often refer people to post to the mailing list if they can't
> find an answer, I have never and never seen anyone direct new people
> to the IRC channel.
>

Well, it's not surprising that people who use Discord don't propose the use
of IRC (and vice versa), but this doesn't make the community less fractured.

One thing I haven't seen in this discussion is the fact that Discord
> and Discourse is way more approachable for people who haven't used IRC
> and email their whole life. I understand there must be a balance
> between keeping current contributors happy and attracting new ones.
> But keeping discussions in the mail-list over discourse would (In MY
> opinion) favor current/older contributors way higher than newer ones.
>

Attracting new people is very important for open source projects. Older
people (like me) tend to be a lot less passionate about changes. But this
is not a goal per se, just a constraint on other goals.

The main objective of the list is to discuss the project, long and hard
issues, and both old and new people can use mailing lists with pretty much
any mail client out there.

If the argument to move to Discourse is because it's better for long and
hard discussions for the majority of the community, then that's a clear
signal.

If it's just because it's where all the cool kids are these days, then I
think we're looking for the wrong goals.

5 years ago, all cool kids (*) were using Slack, now they're using
Discourse / Discord, who knows where they'll all be in 5 years time?

I don't think popularity should be a factor in choosing a new tool, or
we'll be eternally chasing doomed platforms.

cheers,
-renato

PS (*): My definition of "cool kids" may be different than yours, Slack
probably was never "cool" for the masses... But we're hopefully not
considering Instagram any time soon. :D
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing List Status Update

[John McCall via lldb-dev]

On 3 Jun 2021, at 18:19, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote:
> I've just tried out discourse for the first time. It is not clear to me how
> to use it to replace mailing lists. It has a setting "mailing list mode",
> which sounds like the right thing -- sending all messages via email. Except
> that option is global -- all messages in all categories on the llvm
> discourse instance. Which definitely isn't what I want at all. I don't want
> to subscribe to MLIR, for example.
>
> In general, I'd say I'm pretty uncomfortable with switching from a mailing
> list to discourse. Discourse seems entirely reasonable to use for
> end-user-facing forums, but I'm rather unconvinced about its suitability as
> a dev-list replacement. Other communities (e.g. python) seem to have a
> split, still: mailing lists for dev-lists, and discourse for
> end-user-facing forums.
>
> I'd also note that Mailman3 provides a lot more features than what we're
> used to with mailman2, including the ability to interact/post through the
> website.
>
> Maybe someone can convince me that I'm just being a curmudgeon, but at this
> point, I'd say we ought to be investigating options to have Someone Else
> manage the mailman service, and keep using mailing lists, rather than
> attempting to switch to discourse.

I think that mailing lists have proven repeatedly that they’re actually
very bad for the sort of technical conversations we want to have in the
community.  It’s possible to put a lot of work into your mailing-list
experience and end up with something that half-solves some of these
problems, but it takes a lot of time and expertise, and you’re left with
something that still suffers the inherent flaws of email.

Let me try to explain why, using the ongoing byte-type RFC as a focusing
example.


First off, this is an important conversation that ought to be of interest
to a large number of LLVM developers.  Monitoring a high-traffic mailing
list takes a lot of time; I would say that most LLVM developers don’t
proactively keep up with llvm-dev.  I only became aware of this
conversation because someone thought to explicitly CC me into it.  There
are almost certainly some people who ought to be engaged in this
thread who still aren’t aware of it.

A major part of why that’s the case is that mailing lists lack structure
beyond the Reference structure of threads.  There is no inherent
categorization or tagging in a mailing list; by default, readers see a
jumble of every single thread.  And people are often reluctant to split
mailing lists by topic, and when they do sometimes conversations get
unnaturally divided, or something that should be of broader interest
gets unnecessarily pigeon-holed.  So if I want to find things that are
interesting to me, I have to look at every single active thread to see
what’s going on.

Now, in some cases, I can have that done automatically for me.  I could,
for example, set up a filter that puts all the RFC threads in a
high-priority mailbox that I can scan more frequently.  But that has
two problems.  First, not every generally-important thread is marked
as an RFC; notably, this thread isn’t.  If I set up this filter, I’d
probably be a lot less likely to read the mail mailbox for the list,
and so I’d probably miss most of these threads.  And second, I can do
that for myself, but I can’t make other people do it.  There are people
who aren’t reading and contributing to important threads because they
aren’t aware of them.  The lack of structure creates a firehose effect
that undermines the ability of conversations to reach a broader
consensus, no matter what I do locally.

And honestly, I think that’s one of the biggest problems affecting LLVM
right now: we have no good consensus mechanism as a community to change
LLVM IR.  We have RFC threads, and then we have “make a presentation at
at an LLVM Developer’s Conference, probably the US one, and then convene
a roundtable to try to get people on board with your plan.”  As a result,
I think there’s a lot of reluctance to change IR when, honestly, IR
is supposed to be an evolving tool that needs to change in order to
solve problems better.  I’m not saying that the mailing list is the sole
cause of this problem, but I do think it contributes.


Secondly, what structure does exist for mailing lists is not good
for technical conversations.  The deep problem is the tree structure
of threads, which is mathematically pleasing but manifestly leads to
worse results.  Different forks of the thread end up repeating the
same arguments because people don’t see that that conversation has
already happened — or worse, different forks *don’t* repeat the same
arguments because the people involved in them aren’t aware of the rest
of the thread.  I’ve seen so many threads where different branches
continued on to reach completely different conclusions, or where
one contributor jumps from one branch to another, leaving the people
who were only engaged in the old branch thinking that the 

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing List Status Update

[Philip Reames via lldb-dev]

On 6/15/21 11:15 AM, Matt P. Dziubinski via llvm-dev wrote:

On 6/15/2021 19:41, David Blaikie wrote:

    When
    you open a page on https://llvm.discourse.group
     it doesn't load (or
    show) the entire thread on one page by default but instead
    progressively
    loads (and unloads) partial content as you scroll along.

Ah, yeah - which is why it hijacks the search shortcut to do a web 
form search rather than the browser builtin. Seems to work OK - I 
wouldn't count this as a major usability problem, at least for me.


Fair enough, there's always an element of subjectivity to UX, so YMMV. 
At the same time one issue with the aforementioned hijacking is that 
is not complete, either--e.g., it doesn't support built-in search 
features like "Find Next" or "Find Previous". For users used to 
keyboard navigation this is a usability problem (especially in 
development-oriented discussions, when searching for occurrences of 
identifiers in, say, LLVM IR does come in handy).


I want to highlight the accessibility point here.  I have fairly poor 
vision, and regularly consume content in modes which someone with 
perfect vision might not.  The ability to blow things up, search easily 
within a page, and otherwise consume content in a customizable manner 
*matters* to me.  I emphasize this because I feel the point often gets 
lost in tooling discussions.





    There's no such restriction in the Mailman web UI since it 
displays the

    entire thread on one page by default, even for longer threads, e.g.,
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-...@python.org/thread/JM6SQ2YNMDAKXYD5O54QWMVR2X7QOXVL/

    Loading the complete thread (displaying all messages) allows the
    built-in search to work without issues.

Great to see too - especially to see that it addresses an issue 
that's always pained me about our current mailman setup, where 
threads get split by week or month - so there's no nice way to link 
to a whole thread. I'll be happy to see that addressed in either/any 
way.


Agreed, I also see this as an improvement.

Best,
Matt
___
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-...@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing List Status Update

[David Blaikie via lldb-dev]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:50 AM Matt P. Dziubinski  wrote:

> On 6/15/2021 18:29, David Blaikie wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:40 AM Matt P. Dziubinski via llvm-dev
> > mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/15/2021 12:58, Aaron Ballman via llvm-dev wrote:
> >  > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 5:41 PM James Y Knight via cfe-dev
> >  > mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >  >>
> >  >> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:19 PM James Y Knight
> > mailto:jykni...@google.com>> wrote:
> >  >>>
> >  >>> I've just tried out discourse for the first time. It is not
> > clear to me how to use it to replace mailing lists. It has a setting
> > "mailing list mode", which sounds like the right thing -- sending
> > all messages via email. Except that option is global -- all messages
> > in all categories on the llvm discourse instance. Which definitely
> > isn't what I want at all. I don't want to subscribe to MLIR, for
> > example.
> >  >>
> >  >>
> >  >> FWIW, it would seem that one secret trick here is to NOT check
> > "mailing list mode" -- that option is mostly there to confuse you, I
> > guess.
> >  >>
> >  >>> In general, I'd say I'm pretty uncomfortable with switching
> > from a mailing list to discourse. Discourse seems entirely
> > reasonable to use for end-user-facing forums, but I'm rather
> > unconvinced about its suitability as a dev-list replacement. Other
> > communities (e.g. python) seem to have a split, still: mailing lists
> > for dev-lists, and discourse for end-user-facing forums.
> >  >>>
> >  >>> I'd also note that Mailman3 provides a lot more features than
> > what we're used to with mailman2, including the ability to
> > interact/post through the website.
> >  >>>
> >  >>> Maybe someone can convince me that I'm just being a curmudgeon,
> > but at this point, I'd say we ought to be investigating options to
> > have Someone Else manage the mailman service, and keep using mailing
> > lists, rather than attempting to switch to discourse.
> >  >>
> >  >>
> >  >> On that last point, I've gone ahead and asked the folks at
> > osci.io  ("Open Source Community Infrastructure") if
> > they'd be willing to host our mailing lists. They are a group at
> > RedHat whose mission is to support infrastructure for open-source
> > community projects, and they host mailman3 lists for a number of
> > other open-source groups, already (https://www.osci.io/tenants/
> > ). So, I believe they have the
> > necessary experience and expertise.
> >  >>
> >  >> They have said they indeed are willing and have the capacity to
> > run this for us as a service, if we'd like. We'd still need to be
> > responsible for things like list moderation, but they'd run the
> > mailman installation on their infrastructure. In my opinion, we
> > ought to take this option, rather than trying to push a migration to
> > discourse.
> >  >>
> >  >> To me, it seems this would be a much clearer upgrade path, and
> > would solve the hosting/volunteer-admin issue -- including for
> > commit lists -- giving the current maintainers quicker relief from
> > the undesired task of running the list service. Additionally, since
> > it would be a migration to Mailman3, we would get many of the
> > additional features mentioned as desirable, e.g. searchable archives
> > and posting from the website.
> >  >
> >  > Thank you for checking into a mailman3 hosting option, I think
> this
> >  > approach would make me feel the most comfortable (far more
> > comfortable
> >  > than switching to Discord).
> >
> > I also find Mailman 3 friendlier than Discourse from the UX point of
> > view.
> >
> > Currently Discourse doesn't directly support standard search
> > functionality in web browsers,
> >
> >
> > Could you describe what's missing/not working in more detail? At least I
> > can use my browser (Chrome)'s search functionality to find words in both
> > the pages linked below.
>
>
> Sure! It may be easier to notice in a longer thread: Compare the
> following two views--searching for D104227 using the built-in search in
> a web browser initially finds 0 occurrences in the first one (at the
> same time it works fine in the print preview and finds 1 occurrence in
> the penultimate comment, at least at the moment of writing):
>
> https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-introduce-alloca-scope-op/2940
>
> https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-introduce-alloca-scope-op/2940/print


Ah, yep, that demonstrates the issue but for some reason the previous links
didn't (maybe because the previous linked thread was all on one page for me)


>
>
> The issue is related to the unload-on-scroll behavior of Discourse: When
> you open a page on 

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing List Status Update

[David Blaikie via lldb-dev]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:40 AM Matt P. Dziubinski via llvm-dev <
llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On 6/15/2021 12:58, Aaron Ballman via llvm-dev wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 5:41 PM James Y Knight via cfe-dev
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:19 PM James Y Knight 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I've just tried out discourse for the first time. It is not clear to
> me how to use it to replace mailing lists. It has a setting "mailing list
> mode", which sounds like the right thing -- sending all messages via email.
> Except that option is global -- all messages in all categories on the llvm
> discourse instance. Which definitely isn't what I want at all. I don't want
> to subscribe to MLIR, for example.
> >>
> >>
> >> FWIW, it would seem that one secret trick here is to NOT check "mailing
> list mode" -- that option is mostly there to confuse you, I guess.
> >>
> >>> In general, I'd say I'm pretty uncomfortable with switching from a
> mailing list to discourse. Discourse seems entirely reasonable to use for
> end-user-facing forums, but I'm rather unconvinced about its suitability as
> a dev-list replacement. Other communities (e.g. python) seem to have a
> split, still: mailing lists for dev-lists, and discourse for
> end-user-facing forums.
> >>>
> >>> I'd also note that Mailman3 provides a lot more features than what
> we're used to with mailman2, including the ability to interact/post through
> the website.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe someone can convince me that I'm just being a curmudgeon, but at
> this point, I'd say we ought to be investigating options to have Someone
> Else manage the mailman service, and keep using mailing lists, rather than
> attempting to switch to discourse.
> >>
> >>
> >> On that last point, I've gone ahead and asked the folks at osci.io
> ("Open Source Community Infrastructure") if they'd be willing to host our
> mailing lists. They are a group at RedHat whose mission is to support
> infrastructure for open-source community projects, and they host mailman3
> lists for a number of other open-source groups, already (
> https://www.osci.io/tenants/). So, I believe they have the necessary
> experience and expertise.
> >>
> >> They have said they indeed are willing and have the capacity to run
> this for us as a service, if we'd like. We'd still need to be responsible
> for things like list moderation, but they'd run the mailman installation on
> their infrastructure. In my opinion, we ought to take this option, rather
> than trying to push a migration to discourse.
> >>
> >> To me, it seems this would be a much clearer upgrade path, and would
> solve the hosting/volunteer-admin issue -- including for commit lists --
> giving the current maintainers quicker relief from the undesired task of
> running the list service. Additionally, since it would be a migration to
> Mailman3, we would get many of the additional features mentioned as
> desirable, e.g. searchable archives and posting from the website.
> >
> > Thank you for checking into a mailman3 hosting option, I think this
> > approach would make me feel the most comfortable (far more comfortable
> > than switching to Discord).
>
> I also find Mailman 3 friendlier than Discourse from the UX point of view.
>
> Currently Discourse doesn't directly support standard search
> functionality in web browsers,


Could you describe what's missing/not working in more detail? At least I
can use my browser (Chrome)'s search functionality to find words in both
the pages linked below.


> requiring workarounds like using the
> print preview: Compare
> https://meta.discourse.org/t/disabling-unload-on-scroll/173975 and
> https://meta.discourse.org/t/disabling-unload-on-scroll/173975/print
>
> Looking at python-dev Mailman 3 interface doesn't seem to suffer from
> this issue:
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-...@python.org/
>
> Best,
> Matt
> ___
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing List Status Update

[James Y Knight via lldb-dev]

On Sat, Jun 5, 2021, 1:19 AM Mehdi AMINI  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:20 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> I've just tried out discourse for the first time. It is not clear to me
>> how to use it to replace mailing lists. It has a setting "mailing list
>> mode", which sounds like the right thing -- sending all messages via email.
>> Except that option is global -- all messages in all categories on the llvm
>> discourse instance. Which definitely isn't what I want at all. I don't want
>> to subscribe to MLIR, for example.
>>
>> In general, I'd say I'm pretty uncomfortable with switching from a
>> mailing list to discourse. Discourse seems entirely reasonable to use for
>> end-user-facing forums, but I'm rather unconvinced about its suitability as
>> a dev-list replacement.
>>
>
> Can you elaborate why or what aspect makes it unsuitable? We've been using
> this exclusively without a  "dev list" for MLIR and it is working perfectly
> well as far as I can tell. I believe Swift does the same thing as well.
>

My first concern is that it does not appear to be actually usable via email
in the same way the existing collection of mailing lists is. I wonder
if these others primarily interact with it through the website, rather than
via email? It certainly seems like a reasonable web forum, even if not a
reasonable mailing list service.

I have not used discourse enough to really have a firm opinion on whether
(or why) it would be a bad idea to switch from an email workflow to a
webforum workflow using the discourse website. Possibly that could be OK
(although, at this point, unconvinced), but it *would* be a major change in
workflow, and is not what the original pitch was.


Thanks,
>
> --
> Mehdi
>
>
>
>> Other communities (e.g. python) seem to have a split, still: mailing
>> lists for dev-lists, and discourse for end-user-facing forums.
>>
>> I'd also note that Mailman3 provides a lot more features than what we're
>> used to with mailman2, including the ability to interact/post through the
>> website.
>>
>> Maybe someone can convince me that I'm just being a curmudgeon, but at
>> this point, I'd say we ought to be investigating options to have Someone
>> Else manage the mailman service, and keep using mailing lists, rather than
>> attempting to switch to discourse.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 4:50 PM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <
>> cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We recently[1] ran into some issues with the mailing lists that caused
>>> us to disable automatic approval of subscriptions.  Over the past few
>>> months, the LLVM Foundation Board of Directors have been investigating
>>> solutions to this issue and are recommending that the project move its
>>> discussion forum from mailman to Discourse[2].
>>>
>>> The proposed migration plan is to move the discussion lists (e.g *-dev,
>>> *-users lists) to Discourse as soon as possible.  The commit email lists
>>> (*-commits lists) will remain on mailman until a not-yet-determined date
>>> in the future, after which they will be replaced by something else.
>>> Some commit lists alternatives include Discourse and GitHub commit
>>> comments (but there may be others).
>>>
>>> Here are the reasons why the LLVM Foundation Board of Directors is
>>> recommending this change:
>>>
>>> - The LLVM project discussion lists cannot be adequately maintained by
>>> our
>>>current volunteer infrastructure staff and without changes we run the
>>>risk of a major outage.
>>>
>>> - We are able to make this change without significant impact to user's or
>>>developer's daily workflows because Discourse supports email
>>> subscriptions
>>>and posting (NOTE: if you are concerned that your workflow may be
>>> impacted
>>>by this change, please contact the Infrastructure Working Group[3], so
>>>they can help test your workflow with Discourse.)
>>>
>>> - Discourse gives us additional features that will benefit the community:
>>>- Easy to signup and subscribe to categories
>>>- Better moderation tools.
>>>- Web-based user interface.
>>>- Ability to send announcements to multiple categories to avoid
>>> having to
>>>  cross-post community wide announcements.
>>>
>>> - A subset of the community (MLIR) have been experimenting with Discourse
>>>for over a year and are able to provide feedback about this experience
>>>to the Board of Directors.
>>>
>>> We did also consider one alternative, which was migrating our lists to a
>>> mailman hosting service.  However, we concluded that with all the work it
>>> would take to migrate our lists to another service, it would be better
>>> if we moved to a service (like Discourse) that provided more features
>>> than what we have now.
>>>
>>> We understand that moving to Discourse is a change for the community and
>>> that people may be worried about this having a negative impact on their
>>> participation in the project.  As mentioned above, 

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing List Status Update

[Aaron Ballman via lldb-dev]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:20 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev
 wrote:
>
> I've just tried out discourse for the first time. It is not clear to me how 
> to use it to replace mailing lists. It has a setting "mailing list mode", 
> which sounds like the right thing -- sending all messages via email. Except 
> that option is global -- all messages in all categories on the llvm discourse 
> instance. Which definitely isn't what I want at all. I don't want to 
> subscribe to MLIR, for example.
>
> In general, I'd say I'm pretty uncomfortable with switching from a mailing 
> list to discourse. Discourse seems entirely reasonable to use for 
> end-user-facing forums, but I'm rather unconvinced about its suitability as a 
> dev-list replacement. Other communities (e.g. python) seem to have a split, 
> still: mailing lists for dev-lists, and discourse for end-user-facing forums.
>
> I'd also note that Mailman3 provides a lot more features than what we're used 
> to with mailman2, including the ability to interact/post through the website.
>
> Maybe someone can convince me that I'm just being a curmudgeon, but at this 
> point, I'd say we ought to be investigating options to have Someone Else 
> manage the mailman service, and keep using mailing lists, rather than 
> attempting to switch to discourse.

+1 to this. I've tried discourse in the past and not found it to be a
palatable replacement for mailing lists. Some of that is certainly
inertia (I've been using mailing lists for a *long time*) that I could
work to overcome, but my preference is to continue with mailing lists.

~Aaron

>
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 4:50 PM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev 
>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We recently[1] ran into some issues with the mailing lists that caused
>> us to disable automatic approval of subscriptions.  Over the past few
>> months, the LLVM Foundation Board of Directors have been investigating
>> solutions to this issue and are recommending that the project move its
>> discussion forum from mailman to Discourse[2].
>>
>> The proposed migration plan is to move the discussion lists (e.g *-dev,
>> *-users lists) to Discourse as soon as possible.  The commit email lists
>> (*-commits lists) will remain on mailman until a not-yet-determined date
>> in the future, after which they will be replaced by something else.
>> Some commit lists alternatives include Discourse and GitHub commit
>> comments (but there may be others).
>>
>> Here are the reasons why the LLVM Foundation Board of Directors is
>> recommending this change:
>>
>> - The LLVM project discussion lists cannot be adequately maintained by our
>>current volunteer infrastructure staff and without changes we run the
>>risk of a major outage.
>>
>> - We are able to make this change without significant impact to user's or
>>developer's daily workflows because Discourse supports email subscriptions
>>and posting (NOTE: if you are concerned that your workflow may be impacted
>>by this change, please contact the Infrastructure Working Group[3], so
>>they can help test your workflow with Discourse.)
>>
>> - Discourse gives us additional features that will benefit the community:
>>- Easy to signup and subscribe to categories
>>- Better moderation tools.
>>- Web-based user interface.
>>- Ability to send announcements to multiple categories to avoid having to
>>  cross-post community wide announcements.
>>
>> - A subset of the community (MLIR) have been experimenting with Discourse
>>for over a year and are able to provide feedback about this experience
>>to the Board of Directors.
>>
>> We did also consider one alternative, which was migrating our lists to a
>> mailman hosting service.  However, we concluded that with all the work it
>> would take to migrate our lists to another service, it would be better
>> if we moved to a service (like Discourse) that provided more features
>> than what we have now.
>>
>> We understand that moving to Discourse is a change for the community and
>> that people may be worried about this having a negative impact on their
>> participation in the project.  As mentioned above, we believe that this
>> change can be done without significant impact to anyone’s workflows.
>> If you disagree, please contact the Infrastructure Working Group, to
>> document the impact to your workflow, so we can work together to find
>> a solution for your issue.
>>
>> If you have any other questions or comments you can raise them on this
>> thread and please keep criticisms constructive and on topic.
>>
>>
>> LLVM Foundation Board of Directors
>>
>> [1] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-March/149027.html
>> [2] https://www.discourse.org/
>> [3] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-iwg
>>
>> ___
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-...@lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
> ___
> LLVM Developers