llvm dev - Jun 2016 - Switching to git (Windows experience) (was re:[cfe-dev] GitHub anyone?)

>On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org> wrote:
>> I think we should start two other threads: one about git tooling on
Windows
>> and one about infrastructure problems migrating to git.
>
>Some developers on Windows prefer to use GUI tools like TortoiseSVN to
>command line tools for version control. The last time I tried
>TortoiseGit on Windows (which was over a year ago), it did not feel
>ready for production use on a complex project to me (I had crashes on
>simple operations, and it seems I was not alone in seeing flaky
>behavior: https://gitlab.com/tortoisegit/tortoisegit/issues/1738 and
>https://gitlab.com/tortoisegit/tortoisegit/issues/2494 as examples).
>
>Are there suitable GUI tools for git on Windows for projects as
>complex as LLVM? I believe MSVC has some integration, but I've not
>used it before. Perhaps other tools exist that match the integration
>and stability that TortoiseSVN has with Explorer?
>
>I bring this up as a possible minor concern because asking people to
>switch from one set of command line commands to another set of command
>line commands is a different beast than asking people to switch from
>Explorer-integrated menus and dialogs to the command line (that's a
>drastically different workflow to achieve the same end result of
>source code version control).
+1. I am also bit concerned here. Never used git, but it is fine, I am ready to
learn,
but now when I am using TortoiseSVN the only command line I am using is for
creating the
final patch (though I think that is also available in GUI).
And what I heard in this threads that almost all using only command line for
working with git. That
is really different workflow approach.

I guess people here can be divided on those who using/used both svn and git and
familar with both. Or a minor part, but still some group that are familar with
svn only.
I think latter group just reads this thread and do not leave comments, just
because unfamilar with git
enough to do that.

Tanya Lattner and Anton Korobeynikov wrote about some kind of survey that can
bring on top
the real distribution of opinions, I think this idea was good, if that is a
point of interest.
>~Aaron

On 3 June 2016 at 10:03, George Rimar via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> +1. I am also bit concerned here. Never used git, but it is fine, I am
ready to learn,
> but now when I am using TortoiseSVN the only command line I am using is for
creating the
> final patch (though I think that is also available in GUI).
> And what I heard in this threads that almost all using only command line
for working with git. That
> is really different workflow approach.
This is not true. There are a lot of GUIs for git, even more so than
for SVN. If an outdated tool like TortoiseSVN is enough for LLVM's
purposes, I'm sure there will be some Git GUI that will be good
enough.

I am reading a few people using TortoiseSVN afraid of the change. I
understand the feeling, but now we're looking for technical arguments,
not personal ones. So, what I recommend is for people to try out other
GUIs on LLVM's Git and see how it goes.

I'm also not asking anyone to move to a console based approach, nor
I've seen anyone doing that. What people did was to show their
workflow, which most of it happens to be on the console. And, since
GUIs are just wrappers to command-line tools, if it is possible on the
command-line, it's possible that some GUI tool will be able to do it.
And the reverse is also true, if we can't do it on console, GUIs won't
do it either, and we can't move to Git only.

That's all there is to it.

> I guess people here can be divided on those who using/used both svn and git
and
> familar with both. Or a minor part, but still some group that are familar
with svn only.
Why do you assume that everyone should be familiar with SVN?

Using Git-SVN doesn't automatically make someone familiar with SVN, as
much as using GitHub doesn't make you familiar with Git. You can use
GitHub for years and have no idea how to do anything else in Git, and
still be a perfectly good developer. That's the power of those tools.

> I think latter group just reads this thread and do not leave comments, just
because unfamilar with git
> enough to do that.
I seriously encourage those people to step forward and try out Git
tools, command-line and GUIs, as well as GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket, or
anything else for that matter.

The workflow will change under Git, of course it will. But that
doesn't mean you'll be unable to work or understand what you're
doing.

As a thought experiment, let's suppose we moved from SVN/Git to only
SVN. Do you think the workflow would be identical to everybody else
that uses Git-SVN?

It's not because people use Git-SVN that they work like SVN. All Git
users use Git-SVN because they work like Git, and only the final
commit goes to SVN because *legacy*.


> Tanya Lattner and Anton Korobeynikov wrote about some kind of survey that
can bring on top
> the real distribution of opinions, I think this idea was good, if that is a
point of interest.
They were actually being proactive in trying to understand how the
final move decision would happen, not trying to force people to take
decisions before all the technical issues are solved. These threads
are not about personal opinions any more, they're about technical
issues.

As I loosely collected from the previous (opinion) thread, there were
about 80% of the people strongly in favour, with some 10% undecided
and 10% against. If we were *only* to take those odds, the fairest
thing to do would be to move unconditionally to Git.

But we can't ignore the technical details. All Git supporters are
doing now, is to find a workflow that is sane under Git-only. If we
can't find one, there's no point in moving. If we can, *then* we'll
do
the poll.

As someone said earlier, this is not about Git vs. SVN. It's about the
current workflow vs. some future unknown one. Until we know what the
future workflow looks like, I will personally not vote to move to
Git-Only.

Makes sense?

cheers,
--renato

>On 3 June 2016 at 10:03, George Rimar via llvm-dev
><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> +1. I am also bit concerned here. Never used git, but it is fine, I am
ready to learn,
>> but now when I am using TortoiseSVN the only command line I am using is
for creating the
>> final patch (though I think that is also available in GUI).
>> And what I heard in this threads that almost all using only command
line for working with git. That
>> is really different workflow approach.
>
>This is not true. There are a lot of GUIs for git, even more so than
>for SVN. If an outdated tool like TortoiseSVN is enough for LLVM's
>purposes, I'm sure there will be some Git GUI that will be good
>enough.
I hope so. At this moment I see that TortoiseSVN is like a standart,
and looks like there is no standart GUI for git, what makes me think about
possible
troubles people can face because of low quality of such tools.
Possible low quality I mean, I did not try to use any yet, so I have nothing
more that conserns here.
>I am reading a few people using TortoiseSVN afraid of the change. I
>understand the feeling, but now we're looking for technical arguments,
>not personal ones. So, what I recommend is for people to try out other
>GUIs on LLVM's Git and see how it goes.
>
>I'm also not asking anyone to move to a console based approach, nor
>I've seen anyone doing that. What people did was to show their
>workflow, which most of it happens to be on the console. And, since
>GUIs are just wrappers to command-line tools, if it is possible on the
>command-line, it's possible that some GUI tool will be able to do it.
>And the reverse is also true, if we can't do it on console, GUIs
won't
>do it either, and we can't move to Git only.
>
>That's all there is to it.
>
>
>> I guess people here can be divided on those who using/used both svn and
git and
>> familar with both. Or a minor part, but still some group that are
familar with svn only.
>>
>Why do you assume that everyone should be familiar with SVN?
>
>Using Git-SVN doesn't automatically make someone familiar with SVN, as
>much as using GitHub doesn't make you familiar with Git. You can use
>GitHub for years and have no idea how to do anything else in Git, and
>still be a perfectly good developer. That's the power of those tools.
Ok, what I wanted to say here that it is hard to discuss something with
you're not familar.
Like for me to discuss git here. So if there is a discussion about moving to
git, I assume that
people who involved should be familar with both when voting for something.
I think it is not ok to vote just because "I am using it and it is ok for
me".
>> I think latter group just reads this thread and do not leave comments,
just because unfamilar with git
>> enough to do that.
>>
>I seriously encourage those people to step forward and try out Git
>tools, command-line and GUIs, as well as GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket, or
>anything else for that matter.
>
That probably worth to try. My concerns mostly about mandatory of that,
when looks it just possible that soon I`ll have no other choise.
>The workflow will change under Git, of course it will. But that
>doesn't mean you'll be unable to work or understand what you're
doing.
>
>As a thought experiment, let's suppose we moved from SVN/Git to only
>SVN. Do you think the workflow would be identical to everybody else
>that uses Git-SVN?
>
>It's not because people use Git-SVN that they work like SVN. All Git
>users use Git-SVN because they work like Git, and only the final
>commit goes to SVN because *legacy*.
>> Tanya Lattner and Anton Korobeynikov wrote about some kind of survey
that can bring on top
>> the real distribution of opinions, I think this idea was good, if that
is a point of interest.
>
>They were actually being proactive in trying to understand how the
>final move decision would happen, not trying to force people to take
>decisions before all the technical issues are solved. These threads
>are not about personal opinions any more, they're about technical
>issues.
>
>As I loosely collected from the previous (opinion) thread, there were
>about 80% of the people strongly in favour, with some 10% undecided
>and 10% against. If we were *only* to take those odds, the fairest
>thing to do would be to move unconditionally to Git.
That were people who was directly involved in this discussion. Probably there
are lots
of other opinions. Probably not.
>But we can't ignore the technical details. All Git supporters are
>doing now, is to find a workflow that is sane under Git-only. If we
>can't find one, there's no point in moving. If we can, *then*
we'll do
>the poll.
It sound like you're trying to find something that is not possible with svn
just to justify
that git is a must. I hope I understood that wrong :)
>
>As someone said earlier, this is not about Git vs. SVN. It's about the
>current workflow vs. some future unknown one. Until we know what the
>future workflow looks like, I will personally not vote to move to
>Git-Only.
>
>Makes sense?
>
>cheers,
>--renato
Anyways what I need to add that I am not familar with git and so all above just
my conserns.
Hope that possible new workflow you're talking can will be OK for everyone.

George.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 3 June 2016 at 10:03, George Rimar via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> +1. I am also bit concerned here. Never used git, but it is fine, I am
ready to learn,
>> but now when I am using TortoiseSVN the only command line I am using is
for creating the
>> final patch (though I think that is also available in GUI).
>> And what I heard in this threads that almost all using only command
line for working with git. That
>> is really different workflow approach.
>
> This is not true. There are a lot of GUIs for git, even more so than
> for SVN. If an outdated tool like TortoiseSVN is enough for LLVM's
> purposes, I'm sure there will be some Git GUI that will be good
> enough.
I get the opposite from the responses on this thread. What I've been
taking away is that there are a lot of choices, but none of them are
particularly mature. (That's not to say none of them are plausibly
workable.) By the way, I very much appreciate all of the suggestions
people have chimed in with, so thank you for making those options
known!
> I am reading a few people using TortoiseSVN afraid of the change. I
> understand the feeling, but now we're looking for technical arguments,
> not personal ones. So, what I recommend is for people to try out other
> GUIs on LLVM's Git and see how it goes.
Breaking people's functioning workflows *is* a technical argument.
> I'm also not asking anyone to move to a console based approach, nor
> I've seen anyone doing that. What people did was to show their
> workflow, which most of it happens to be on the console. And, since
> GUIs are just wrappers to command-line tools, if it is possible on the
> command-line, it's possible that some GUI tool will be able to do it.
> And the reverse is also true, if we can't do it on console, GUIs
won't
> do it either, and we can't move to Git only.
>
> That's all there is to it.
The end result is "go use the console". Whether that's because
people
recommend it or because it's the only option is immaterial. The fact
remains, we don't have to do that today, we may have to do that
tomorrow, and some people view that as a regression. Let's not be
dismissive of that by claiming it's a personal preference, please.
>
>
>> I guess people here can be divided on those who using/used both svn and
git and
>> familar with both. Or a minor part, but still some group that are
familar with svn only.
>
> Why do you assume that everyone should be familiar with SVN?
Because everyone currently contributing to LLVM has to be at least
passingly familiar with fetch and commit (and nothing else)?
> Using Git-SVN doesn't automatically make someone familiar with SVN, as
> much as using GitHub doesn't make you familiar with Git. You can use
> GitHub for years and have no idea how to do anything else in Git, and
> still be a perfectly good developer. That's the power of those tools.
>
>
>> I think latter group just reads this thread and do not leave comments,
just because unfamilar with git
>> enough to do that.
>
> I seriously encourage those people to step forward and try out Git
> tools, command-line and GUIs, as well as GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket, or
> anything else for that matter.
>
> The workflow will change under Git, of course it will. But that
> doesn't mean you'll be unable to work or understand what you're
doing.
>
> As a thought experiment, let's suppose we moved from SVN/Git to only
> SVN. Do you think the workflow would be identical to everybody else
> that uses Git-SVN?
>
> It's not because people use Git-SVN that they work like SVN. All Git
> users use Git-SVN because they work like Git, and only the final
> commit goes to SVN because *legacy*.
>
>
>
>> Tanya Lattner and Anton Korobeynikov wrote about some kind of survey
that can bring on top
>> the real distribution of opinions, I think this idea was good, if that
is a point of interest.
>
> They were actually being proactive in trying to understand how the
> final move decision would happen, not trying to force people to take
> decisions before all the technical issues are solved. These threads
> are not about personal opinions any more, they're about technical
> issues.
>
> As I loosely collected from the previous (opinion) thread, there were
> about 80% of the people strongly in favour, with some 10% undecided
> and 10% against. If we were *only* to take those odds, the fairest
> thing to do would be to move unconditionally to Git.
>
> But we can't ignore the technical details. All Git supporters are
> doing now, is to find a workflow that is sane under Git-only. If we
> can't find one, there's no point in moving. If we can, *then*
we'll do
> the poll.
>
> As someone said earlier, this is not about Git vs. SVN. It's about the
> current workflow vs. some future unknown one. Until we know what the
> future workflow looks like, I will personally not vote to move to
> Git-Only.
>
> Makes sense?
Makes sense to me and I very much appreciate the discussions to see if
such a migration is plausible.

Btw, if we do poll the community, I hope there's a distinction made
between "let's move to git and drop all support for svn",
"let's move
to git with a requirement for at least basic svn support", and
"let's
stick with svn".

~Aaron
>
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev