aaron.ballman accepted this revision. aaron.ballman added a comment. In D121078#3368424 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D121078#3368424>, @tonic wrote:
> In D121078#3367950 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D121078#3367950>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> I've added comments to the few places I'd like to see a change, which >> hopefully makes my request more clear. I am carefully trying to avoid adding >> this extra information to the places we're documenting people to go for >> discussion; I think those should continue to only point to Discourse. But >> the places where we have quick links for more useful information are where I >> think we should retain some unobtrusive mention of the complete archives. > > Without going through every single comment here (which is not to dismiss > them, but I am not sure its helpful to respond to each one as I think we both > want to work towards a resolution), I will propose an alternative solution > that I hope has some common ground and addresses both of our concerns. > > I hear you are concerned about is: > > - The archives may be missing information and therefore someone will not find > the information they are looking for. You would like some reference to the > archives to exist. > > (You can correct me of I am wrong) You have the gist of it -- I'd like some "official" place where we make it clear that these archives exist and are "ours" (as opposed to some third-party scraping service that exposes the messages while extracting ad revenue and perhaps modifying link targets for tracking, etc). > I am concerned about: > > - Where communication happens and where to find past communication to be > confusing to newcomers > - Creating more work in the future to remove more references to the mailing > lists that have moved to discourse. It is a lot of work to keep > documentation up to date, so the fewer spots we have outdated information, > the better. > - Creating new patterns of behavior to use Discourse as the first reference > versus the mailing list archives I think all of these are important concerns. > I would propose that we add information to Discourse that informs users of > the migration issue we are working through and that *if* they encounter a > topic that seems incomplete, that they can cross reference with the mailing > list archives. This can be added to the banner that is displayed when users > join Discourse until we decide it is no longer needed or it can be added in > the FAQ/About or as an stand alone announcement on the forum itself. > > I believe this solution will meet both our needs. Please let me know what you > think. Thank you for suggesting this! This adds an extra level of indirection from putting the information in our docs, but I think that's a reasonable compromise. I'd like to avoid adding it to the FAQ if possible because I'm not certain people will think to look there if they find something that looks incomplete on Discourse. Adding it to the banner would certainly work, but might feel like we're advertising it a bit TOO much at that point. Perhaps a pinned post in just the forums that replace a mailing list? That is a bit more work when we decide the information is no longer needed, but maybe it strikes a reasonable balance? Either way, I'm happy enough with *something* along the lines you propose here. Based on that, I don't think further changes are needed on this patch, so it LGTM. Thank you for your patience @SimplyDanny while we worked these details out, and thank you again for updating the docs! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D121078/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D121078 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
