James Y Knight via llvm-dev
2018-Nov-15 22:54 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Dealing with out of tree changes and the LLVM git monorepo
Based on the feedback so far, I propose that we call this discussion done -- we will not go with this zippered proposal, but will proceed with https://github.com/llvm-git-prototype/llvm/. On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 5:06 PM David Greene via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > > What is the status with this proposal? It has been 2 weeks now since > > the initial email and it seems like the discussion is slowing down. Do > > we still want to consider this zippered approach as a possibility for the > > official repo? > > I have very strong feedback from the engineer who does our upstream > merges that he does NOT want to see this zippered repository. A clean > linear history makes understanding merges much easier. > > James made a number of other important points about limitations of the > zippered repository: > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-November/127460.html > > git-bisect being more complicated is a deal-breaker for me. Checking > out a random commit and only getting part of the project is just odd. > > -David > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181115/cb4b1386/attachment.html>
Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
2018-Nov-16 00:07 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Dealing with out of tree changes and the LLVM git monorepo
I think Justin was still experimenting a bit w/ the migration script. I'd like to at least let him get back to this with the results of that? On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:55 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Based on the feedback so far, I propose that we call this discussion done > -- we will not go with this zippered proposal, but will proceed with > https://github.com/llvm-git-prototype/llvm/. > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 5:06 PM David Greene via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: >> >> > What is the status with this proposal? It has been 2 weeks now since >> > the initial email and it seems like the discussion is slowing down. Do >> > we still want to consider this zippered approach as a possibility for >> the >> > official repo? >> >> I have very strong feedback from the engineer who does our upstream >> merges that he does NOT want to see this zippered repository. A clean >> linear history makes understanding merges much easier. >> >> James made a number of other important points about limitations of the >> zippered repository: >> >> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-November/127460.html >> >> git-bisect being more complicated is a deal-breaker for me. Checking >> out a random commit and only getting part of the project is just odd. >> >> -David >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181115/3b2e099d/attachment.html>
Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev
2018-Nov-16 00:09 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Dealing with out of tree changes and the LLVM git monorepo
+1 I'm waiting to transfer significant work from llvm-project-20170507. The original svn has atomic commits across all projects. It would be crazy to use a git version that doesn't duplicate that. On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:54 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Based on the feedback so far, I propose that we call this discussion done > -- we will not go with this zippered proposal, but will proceed with > https://github.com/llvm-git-prototype/llvm/. > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 5:06 PM David Greene via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: >> >> > What is the status with this proposal? It has been 2 weeks now since >> > the initial email and it seems like the discussion is slowing down. Do >> > we still want to consider this zippered approach as a possibility for >> the >> > official repo? >> >> I have very strong feedback from the engineer who does our upstream >> merges that he does NOT want to see this zippered repository. A clean >> linear history makes understanding merges much easier. >> >> James made a number of other important points about limitations of the >> zippered repository: >> >> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-November/127460.html >> >> git-bisect being more complicated is a deal-breaker for me. Checking >> out a random commit and only getting part of the project is just odd. >> >> -David >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181115/bfdac013/attachment.html>
Tim Northover via llvm-dev
2018-Nov-16 00:25 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Dealing with out of tree changes and the LLVM git monorepo
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 at 00:09, Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> The original svn has atomic commits across all projects. It would be crazy to use a git version that doesn't duplicate that.I thought someone found that only a tiny fraction of commits actually made use of that. It's definitely not something anyone can rely on, so I'd consider it more of an added bonus of some approach than a requirement. Cheers. Tim.
Justin Bogner via llvm-dev
2018-Nov-16 06:32 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Dealing with out of tree changes and the LLVM git monorepo
Yes, I’m still trying to evaluate the migration script’s downsides as compared to the zipper approach’s downsides. Sorry that I got a little held up, but I have to balance evaluating this with getting other work done. I should have some feedback to a few of the responses on this thread next week. I really don’t think I can respond in a useful/productive way before I’ve finished these experiments.> On Nov 15, 2018, at 16:07, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I think Justin was still experimenting a bit w/ the migration script. I'd like to at least let him get back to this with the results of that? > >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:55 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Based on the feedback so far, I propose that we call this discussion done -- we will not go with this zippered proposal, but will proceed with https://github.com/llvm-git-prototype/llvm/. >> >>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 5:06 PM David Greene via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: >>> >>> > What is the status with this proposal? It has been 2 weeks now since >>> > the initial email and it seems like the discussion is slowing down. Do >>> > we still want to consider this zippered approach as a possibility for the >>> > official repo? >>> >>> I have very strong feedback from the engineer who does our upstream >>> merges that he does NOT want to see this zippered repository. A clean >>> linear history makes understanding merges much easier. >>> >>> James made a number of other important points about limitations of the >>> zippered repository: >>> >>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-November/127460.html >>> >>> git-bisect being more complicated is a deal-breaker for me. Checking >>> out a random commit and only getting part of the project is just odd. >>> >>> -David >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181115/234d6dad/attachment.html>