llvm dev - Nov 2018 - 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>

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>

+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>

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.

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>