tonic added a comment. In D121078#3366825 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D121078#3366825>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D121078#3366025 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D121078#3366025>, @tonic wrote: > >> In D121078#3365542 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D121078#3365542>, @SimplyDanny >> wrote: >> >>> In D121078#3363856 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D121078#3363856>, >>> @aaron.ballman wrote: >>> >>>> I think we need to retain *some* references to the existing mailing list >>>> archives. The migration to Discourse worked fairly well, but there were >>>> still data migration issues. For example: >>> >>> Do you have some prominent places in mind where the archives should be >>> mentioned? For me as someone who just started to get a bit more involved >>> into LLVM, the archives are not very helpful. There is no way to search for >>> threads as far as I know. That means it is very hard to find anything >>> specific. That is why I actually came up with this change in the first >>> place: Getting rid of references to the "old' mailing lists which are just >>> not helpful for beginners. > > Oh, I think these changes are *fantastic*, so I'm happy we're updating the > stale references to point to the more modern place to go. Thank you for that! > > There are ways to search the archives (as Tanya mentioned, you can use a > google site search over them), but you have to know they exist to know to do > that, which is why I'd like to retain some mention of them until the > migration moves over *all* of the historical data. It's not super handy for > most folks, so I don't think we need a *prominent* place for this. But it is > handy for those of us who have to do a fair amount of historical digging > around to see how we came to the conclusions we came to (not a common > activity, but it is not uncommon for folks on standards committees to be > asked "why does your implementation do X?" and need to go looking). AFAIK, we have never had link to the archives and instructed people to go search them aside from the link on the Mailman list info page. In addition, knowing they exist is also something that was not super obvious to many people who have not used Mailman. I want to avoid adding references to archives in all of these places because it defeats all the work to go and update the locations to have to go back and do it again. It is also confusing to newcomers to the project. You can easily search Discourse and while we have a few cases of migration issues, we are actively determining how widespread it is. If it is determined to be worse than we think (which right now it is minimal), then we can evaluate the next course of action. > I think the least distracting thing we could do would be to put a superscript > footnote after any link to a particular discourse forum which goes to an > anchor at the bottom of the page to a footnote saying something like what I > recommended below. This should keep the focus for most people on going to > Discourse, it shouldn't be overly distracting or confusing to people new to > the docs, but it still retains useful information that some folks need. > >> You do not need to worry about this. > > In your opinion, that may be true; in mine, this is still a concern. I don't think its fair to ask this person to be the one to add links to the archives and handle the situation. They are being put in the middle of an argument. >> Your change is updating the locations people are to ask for help. > > The change is also touching `Mailing List & Forums` content, which are not > specifically about asking for help (they can also be for reading instead of > writing). Again, we have never told people to search the archives. There isn't even a "Search" box on the archives. >> That has changed to Discourse and this is the proper change. This is >> separate from the archive situation which we are actively working on and I >> have full confidence will be sorted out. In addition, most people are not >> looking for archives here, they will do a google search or search the >> archives (which is effectively a google search since we have limited search >> on our website). > > The migration *lost data* and I think it's important we retain some links for > those of us who do code archeology a fair amount. Old timers will certainly > remember that we used to have mailing lists, but that number is going to > decrease as old timers leave the community and newcomers arrive. I see value > in telling people who are new to the community where they can find the full, > accurate history of conversations and so I still see the need to retain > *some* link for quite some time. It's trivial to retain these links with some > wording like `The canonical historical information from this mailing list can > be found at <link>.` And if we don't expect to retain that archive forever > because we have full confidence we'll get all the data migrated eventually, > we can add an additional sentence along the lines of `This archive is > expected to be removed once the migration to Discourse has been verified to > not lose data.` or something. Again, no data has been lost and it is all in Discourse. In some situations it incorrectly determined something was a signature when it was not. We are actively identifying all the situations and working to fix them automatically. I am happy to update the migration to discourse guide with the information and status of the state of the archives and the issue with the migration we found and a link to the old archives. I do not think it's the person's responsibility who created this patch. >>> In D121078#3363856 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D121078#3363856>, >>> @aaron.ballman wrote: >>> >>>> Also, the commits mailing lists are still hosted by mailman and remain >>>> relevant to the community for the foreseeable future. >>> >>> I tried to keep them in all places and just replaced the "-dev" lists by >>> references to the forum(s). Have you found a link to a commits mailing list >>> which I removed unintentionally? >> >> Do not worry about this as you have kept all the references to commits list. > > Thanks, you're absolutely right about that -- I missed that we retained the > existing links to the commits lists. Sorry for the noise there. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D121078/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D121078 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
