-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I'd like to stir the pot a bit because this is a topic more than
worth stirring.
Have we considered using git to track llvm development? I've
been playing around with it on a hobby project of mine and it's
quite fantastic. Miles ahead of SVN.
It strikes me that a compiler is just the type of big, complex
project git was designed to handle. We've got subsystem
maintainers just like the linux kernel and the ability to pull
and push from subsystem repositories and cherry-pick individual
commits is very valuable.
For me, the ability to work offline in a distributed fashion is
pretty much a requirement now. It's not been a pleasant experience
doing this regalloc refactoring while trying to track the interface
changes on mainline. With git I'd just create my own private branch,
commit as necessary to my local repository, do merges from upstrema
when I need to and cherry-pick my diffs to send upstream as patches.
This is practically impossible with CVS or SVN. Plus it would be
easier for the llvm integrators to take my e-mail patches and add
them to mainline and keep full revision history.
So I want to pose the question. Should we consider git instead
of SVN?
-Dave
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGNCf7gQsI8xjTYs8RAlmAAJ9p932ov8G3h7C1skkQaN5GXS1t2wCeMFFQ
CObXk9op5eXIvTSKRj/szr0=yO+T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> So I want to pose the question. Should we consider git instead > of SVN?There was much debate about which version control system to switch to (please search the llvm-dev mailing list). Git was mentioned and discussed. The end decision was to use SVN. I think its best not to rehash this discussion. We have already begun the steps to convert to SVN. There is no perfect version control system that pleases everyone. -Tanya> > -Dave > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFGNCf7gQsI8xjTYs8RAlmAAJ9p932ov8G3h7C1skkQaN5GXS1t2wCeMFFQ > CObXk9op5eXIvTSKRj/szr0> =yO+T > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tanya M. Lattner wrote:> There was much debate about which version control system to switch to > (please search the llvm-dev mailing list).Well, I would if it were searchable...> I think its best not to rehash this discussion. We have already begun the > steps to convert to SVN.I come from a different perspective. While I understand that we don't want to constantly revisit decisions, it's not helpful either to never revisit them.> There is no perfect version control system that pleases everyone.That's true of practically everything. Yet it is also true that some systems are better than others. Git is particularly good in the area of branching and merging which seems to me to be a core part of what an SCM system is. I certainly don't want to cause unnecessary frustration. I'm just raising the question. If the community decides it's been settled for now, then that's what we've decided. But I don't think it's good to completely close down the possibility of alternatives either, especially if new information becomes available. -Dave -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGNNISgQsI8xjTYs8RAlF4AJ93u7mhK9XbuBGRP4XTjLgLxumUVACcDg5l YP2mcAFgGHOW9jlcMnC2AMI=pbuW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----