Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
2016-Feb-25 02:25 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Move the test-suite LLVM project to GitHub?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:01 PM Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Am 24.02.2016 um 21:57 schrieb Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev: > > For all of these reasons, and also because I'd like to see how well (or > > rather, how poorly) a service like GitHub actually works for the project, > > it seems like splitting the test-suite out of the current subversion > > repository and moving it there is the right call. > > My experience from a few years of contributing and a bit of project setup: >All of the stuff you mentioned is really great to know. I just want to clarify in case anyone is confused: I am in no way suggesting that we would use pull requests, issues, or anything else as part of the workflow for the test suite. I'm fine if folks want to talk about that later, but I really view it as a separate discussion. I'm much more interested in just leveraging the managed *hosting* of the repository.> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160225/6fe2aa8e/attachment.html>
Pete Cooper via llvm-dev
2016-Feb-25 06:21 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Move the test-suite LLVM project to GitHub?
Sent from my iPhone> On Feb 24, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I just want to clarify in case anyone is confused: I am in no way suggesting that we would use pull requests, issues, or anything else as part of the workflow for the test suite. I'm fine if folks want to talk about that later, but I really view it as a separate discussion. I'm much more interested in just leveraging the managed *hosting* of the repositoryThis is actually the discussion I really want to happen before we move any code. Firstly, I use git and git-svn every day so I would much prefer the test suite in git. So I'm still very much a +1 for that. However, when I first started using git for llvm I had to adjust from the svn commands to the git ones and using pull/rebase instead of things like merge. Learning those things in my own repo is fine, and several times I screwed up and blew away the repo to start again from a good state. But the point is that I made those mistakes on my own machine. I'm scared of anyone else making those mistakes to the llvm test suite. That is the big advantage of the pull request model and I think that's something we should consider for any git based llvm code, including the tests. I'm also open to alternatives, but as I said, we need some way, even if it's pre-commit hooks, to make sure that anyone other that admins are behaving (not pushing too many commits at a time, no merges, etc) Cheers Pete
Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
2016-Feb-25 07:16 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Move the test-suite LLVM project to GitHub?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:21 PM Pete Cooper via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Feb 24, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > I just want to clarify in case anyone is confused: I am in no way > suggesting that we would use pull requests, issues, or anything else as > part of the workflow for the test suite. I'm fine if folks want to talk > about that later, but I really view it as a separate discussion. I'm much > more interested in just leveraging the managed *hosting* of the repository > This is actually the discussion I really want to happen before we move any > code. > > Firstly, I use git and git-svn every day so I would much prefer the test > suite in git. So I'm still very much a +1 for that. > > However, when I first started using git for llvm I had to adjust from the > svn commands to the git ones and using pull/rebase instead of things like > merge. > > Learning those things in my own repo is fine, and several times I screwed > up and blew away the repo to start again from a good state. But the point > is that I made those mistakes on my own machine. I'm scared of anyone else > making those mistakes to the llvm test suite. That is the big advantage of > the pull request model and I think that's something we should consider for > any git based llvm code, including the tests. > > I'm also open to alternatives, but as I said, we need some way, even if > it's pre-commit hooks, to make sure that anyone other that admins are > behaving (not pushing too many commits at a time, no merges, etc) >Yep. I have no idea what the correct process is here. If folks are generally happy about this direction, I'll try to have a concrete proposal of a process. It will be *very* minimal so as to be safe and match as closely as possible the existing workflows. That said, this is yet again why I think the cost/benefit tradeoff is better for the test suite. In the worst case, if we hose the repository for the test suite, it is likely to be incredibly easier to fix as we won't have 50 people all trying to get work done by landing patches at the same time as thing go sideways. And if we lose some detail of history, as long as we recover the essence, its a much less big deal. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160225/0717ec3b/attachment.html>
Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev
2016-Feb-25 07:36 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Move the test-suite LLVM project to GitHub?
Am 25.02.2016 um 03:25 schrieb Chandler Carruth:> I just want to clarify in case anyone is confused: I am in no way > suggesting that we would use pull requests, issues, or anything else as > part of the workflow for the test suite. I'm fine if folks want to talk > about that later, but I really view it as a separate discussion.Hm... then I guess I am confused about that "because I'd like to see how well (or rather, how poorly) a service like GitHub actually works for the project" bit. If the definition of "works well" is "service availability for uploads and downloads with reasonable data speed is at least 99.99%", then any git hosting service that I have ever seen will work. This means BitBucket, GitLab, and GitHub, though I'd expect any other git hoster to work just as well, connectivity and throughput are the basics. Regards, Jo
Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
2016-Feb-25 07:47 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Move the test-suite LLVM project to GitHub?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:36 PM Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Am 25.02.2016 um 03:25 schrieb Chandler Carruth: > > I just want to clarify in case anyone is confused: I am in no way > > suggesting that we would use pull requests, issues, or anything else as > > part of the workflow for the test suite. I'm fine if folks want to talk > > about that later, but I really view it as a separate discussion. > > Hm... then I guess I am confused about that "because I'd like to see how > well (or rather, how poorly) a service like GitHub actually works for > the project" bit. >Even if we don't directly use the features as part of normal development, we could experiment with them and learn about them.> If the definition of "works well" is "service availability for uploads > and downloads with reasonable data speed is at least 99.99%", then any > git hosting service that I have ever seen will work. This means > BitBucket, GitLab, and GitHub, though I'd expect any other git hoster to > work just as well, connectivity and throughput are the basics. >True, but personally, given its widespread use and rapidly improving ecosystem position, I think the most interesting option here long term will be GitHub, so that's the one I'm interested in investigating. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160225/ca30514b/attachment.html>