Have we made any progress on a potential git conversion? AFAIK the only
outstanding technical issue is the monotonic revision number question.
Personally, I have no nead for them but others have expressed
reservation about losing them.
Can we have a discussion about that to identify the core tasks currently
needing monotnic revision numbers and how they might be accomplished
under git? Otherwise I fear we will be forever stuck in the waiting
game.
I also know that there is a time/resource issue in actually making the
transition. Some group of people needs to do the work. Has there been
any progress in identifying who those people are? Any volunteers? I'll
put my name in the hat to do whatever mundane work I can do to help the
process along. All assuming we actually make the transition, of course.
-Dave
> Have we made any progress on a potential git conversion? AFAIK the only > outstanding technical issue is the monotonic revision number question. > Personally, I have no nead for them but others have expressed > reservation about losing them.There are very decent solutions to the monotonic revnum issue (git describe, hooks/tagging), so that shouldn't hold back the transition. I suppose it's merely a manpower thing now, and the fact that Subversion unfortunately works "well enough" for the majority of peeps.
FlyLanguage <flylanguage at gmail.com> writes:>> Have we made any progress on a potential git conversion? AFAIK the only >> outstanding technical issue is the monotonic revision number question. >> Personally, I have no nead for them but others have expressed >> reservation about losing them. > > There are very decent solutions to the monotonic revnum issue (git > describe, hooks/tagging), so that shouldn't hold back the transition.That's what we need to have a discussion about. If those things will work for people, great. If not, we have some stuff to figure out.> I suppose it's merely a manpower thing nowI'm not assuming that given the volume of e-mail around this.> and the fact that Subversion unfortunately works "well enough" for the > majority of peeps.Is that really true? I've heard of a lot of LLVM developers using git but it all seems very opaque right now. That's why I hope to get people talking so we can find out where everyone is and go from there. -Dave
This is why I posted a link to the transition plan for Python - http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0385/ - to use as a model for LLVM's transition. There are a lot of questions which need to be answered: -- Where will the main repository be hosted? -- What branches will be copied over from svn to the main repository? -- What tools will be used to copy the history? -- What presubmit hooks will be needed before the repository can go live? -- Who will manage the set of core committers, and what tools / training will they need? -- Will the project hierarchy look the same as it does now? -- Will there be any subprojects of LLVM that will not be migrating? -- Will the LLVM history be trimmed to save space? If so, what will be the cutoff? -- What tool will replace the existing ViewVC functionality on the llvm.orgwebsite? -- What will happen to the old SVN repositories afterwards? That's just a starter list, I'm sure there are many more questions that could be asked, On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:27 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote:> Have we made any progress on a potential git conversion? AFAIK the only > outstanding technical issue is the monotonic revision number question. > Personally, I have no nead for them but others have expressed > reservation about losing them. > > Can we have a discussion about that to identify the core tasks currently > needing monotnic revision numbers and how they might be accomplished > under git? Otherwise I fear we will be forever stuck in the waiting > game. > > I also know that there is a time/resource issue in actually making the > transition. Some group of people needs to do the work. Has there been > any progress in identifying who those people are? Any volunteers? I'll > put my name in the hat to do whatever mundane work I can do to help the > process along. All assuming we actually make the transition, of course. > > -Dave > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-- -- Talin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110908/93f64908/attachment.html>
So. As long as the core devs are half mute on the topic, I don't think anything will happen. Asking a bunch of mostly irrelevant questions with no answers will not help. Let's face it, Joe Dragon is pretty much happy with svn and there's an svn-git bridge for the rest of us.> This is why I posted a link to the transition plan for Python - > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0385/ - to use as a model for LLVM's > transition. There are a lot of questions which need to be answered: > > -- Where will the main repository be hosted? > -- What branches will be copied over from svn to the main repository? > -- What tools will be used to copy the history? > -- What presubmit hooks will be needed before the repository can go live? > -- Who will manage the set of core committers, and what tools / training > will they need? > -- Will the project hierarchy look the same as it does now? > -- Will there be any subprojects of LLVM that will not be migrating? > -- Will the LLVM history be trimmed to save space? If so, what will be > the cutoff? > -- What tool will replace the existing ViewVC functionality on the > llvm.org <http://llvm.org> website? > -- What will happen to the old SVN repositories afterwards? > > That's just a starter list, I'm sure there are many more questions that > could be asked, > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:27 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com > <mailto:dag at cray.com>> wrote: > > Have we made any progress on a potential git conversion? AFAIK the only > outstanding technical issue is the monotonic revision number question. > Personally, I have no nead for them but others have expressed > reservation about losing them. > > Can we have a discussion about that to identify the core tasks currently > needing monotnic revision numbers and how they might be accomplished > under git? Otherwise I fear we will be forever stuck in the waiting > game. > > I also know that there is a time/resource issue in actually making the > transition. Some group of people needs to do the work. Has there been > any progress in identifying who those people are? Any volunteers? I'll > put my name in the hat to do whatever mundane work I can do to help the > process along. All assuming we actually make the transition, of course. > > -Dave > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > > > -- > -- Talin > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev