llvm dev - Oct 2019 - [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Hi,

I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
after the GitHub migration.

The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.

Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.

With this new development, the question I have is when should the
git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we
wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?

Thanks,
Tom

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:14 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
> after the GitHub migration.
>
> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.
>
> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
What about prevention of new branch creation?
>From the bugzilla disscussion, i gather that is not possible to do via
github?
> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or
should we
> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
Roman
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

I say retire it instantly.
> On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
> after the GitHub migration.
> 
> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.
> 
> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
> 
> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or
should we
> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

I’d like to see it go away. For better and for worse, git is feature rich and
that makes maintaining a wrapper script difficult. Personally speaking, I had to
fix a git-llvm bug recently because it made flimsy assumptions about git remote
names and how upstream tracking repositories work.
> On Oct 15, 2019, at 10:47 AM, Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> I say retire it instantly.
> 
>> On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
>> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm
script
>> after the GitHub migration.
>> 
>> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
>> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
>> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent
developers
>> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history
non-linear.
>> 
>> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require
Linear
>> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
>> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
>> 
>> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
>> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional
immediately,
>> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or
should we
>> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it
optional?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On 10/15/2019 12:20 AM, Roman Lebedev wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:14 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
>> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm
script
>> after the GitHub migration.
>>
>> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
>> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
>> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent
developers
>> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history
non-linear.
>>
>> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require
Linear
>> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
>> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
> 
> What about prevention of new branch creation?
> From the bugzilla disscussion, i gather that is not possible to do via
github?
> 
Correct, but the git-llvm script can only prevent people from creating new
branches if they use the script.  Someone could still create a new branch
using `git push`.   We can use branch protections to prevent pushing to
existing branches but not for preventing new ones.

-Tom


>> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
>> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional
immediately,
>> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or
should we
>> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it
optional?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
> Roman
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

<div class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr"
style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"
><div dir="ltr" ><div><font face="Default
Monospace,Courier New,Courier,monospace" size="2" >On
10/15/2019 12:20 AM, Roman Lebedev wrote:<br>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at
10:14 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev<br>> <cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org>
wrote:<br>>><br>>>
Hi,<br>>><br>>> I mentioned this in my email last week,
but I wanted to start a new<br>>> thread to get everyone's input
on what to do about the git-llvm script<br>>> after the GitHub
migration.<br>>><br>>> The original plan was to require
the use of the git-llvm script when<br>>> committing to GitHub even
after the migration was complete.<br>>> The reason we decided to do
this was so that we could prevent developers<br>>> from accidentally
pushing merge commits and making the history
non-linear.<br>>><br>>> Just in the last week, the
GitHub team completed the "Require Linear<br>>> History"
branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear<br>>>
history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do
this.<br>><br>> What about prevention of new branch
creation?<br>> From the bugzilla disscussion, i gather that is not
possible to do via github?<br>><br><br>Correct, but the
git-llvm script can only prevent people from creating new<br>branches if
they use the script.  Someone could still create a new branch<br>using
`git push`.   We can use branch protections to prevent pushing
to<br>existing branches but not for preventing new
ones.<br><br>-Tom<br><br>Maybe I missed something, but
the git doc seem to indicate we can setup a server </font></div>
<div><font face="Default Monospace,Courier
New,Courier,monospace" size="2" >side pre-receive hook.  Can
we not use this to prevent users from creating a new
branch?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Default Monospace,Courier
New,Courier,monospace" size="2" >-
Lei<br><br>>> With this new development, the question I have
is when should the<br>>> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we
make it optional immediately,<br>>> so that developers can push
directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we<br>>> wait a few
weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it
optional?<br>>><br>>> Thanks,<br>>>
Tom<br>> Roman<br>><br>>>
_______________________________________________<br>>> cfe-dev
mailing list<br>>> cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org<br>>> <a
href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev"
target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a>
<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>cfe-dev
mailing list<br>cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org<br><a
href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev"
target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a>
</font><br> </div></div>
<div dir="ltr" > </div></div><BR>

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I say retire it instantly.
>
+1. It has never been a real requirement to use the script. Using native
svn is still viable until the point of the migration.

>
> > On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
> > thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm
script
> > after the GitHub migration.
> >
> > The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
> > committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
> > The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent
developers
> > from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history
> non-linear.
> >
> > Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require
Linear
> > History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
> > history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
> >
> > With this new development, the question I have is when should the
> > git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional
immediately,
> > so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or
> should we
> > wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it
optional?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20191015/747fc2a9/attachment.html>