llvm dev - Sep 2011 - [LLVMdev] git Status Update?

On Sep 3, 2011, at 5:01 AM, FlyLanguage wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:15 PM, FlyLanguage wrote:
>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Yet, there's surprisingly little complaint about Subversion
around here,
>>> which is kinda unfortunate :)
>> 
>> I know you're being facetious, but why is it unfortunate?
> 
> Because you're missing so much.
I read Dave's document. It lists (rather complex) ways to use it, but it
doesn't list why any of them are needed for our workflow. That would go more
towards convincing me that it's a good thing.
> > I still don't know what a "ref" or "object"
is.)
> 
> Fortunately, that's about the only thing in a git repository, so
there's not much more to learn :)

That doesn't tell me anything. And unfortunately they are used in many git
commands.

-bw

>>>> Yet, there's surprisingly little complaint about Subversion
around here,
>>>> which is kinda unfortunate :)
>>>
>>> I know you're being facetious, but why is it unfortunate?
>>
>> Because you're missing so much.
>
> I read Dave's document. It lists (rather complex) ways to use it, but
it doesn't list why any of them are needed for our workflow. That would go
more towards convincing me that it's a good thing.
Yes, it more complex than svn. No doubt. I'm personally very happy with 
the svn-git bridge - my only wish is it was updated more often.

Le 3 sept. 2011 à 14:18, Bill Wendling a écrit :
> On Sep 3, 2011, at 5:01 AM, FlyLanguage wrote:
> 
>>> On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:15 PM, FlyLanguage wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> Yet, there's surprisingly little complaint about Subversion
around here,
>>>> which is kinda unfortunate :)
>>> 
>>> I know you're being facetious, but why is it unfortunate?
>> 
>> Because you're missing so much.
> 
> I read Dave's document. It lists (rather complex) ways to use it, but
it doesn't list why any of them are needed for our workflow. That would go
more towards convincing me that it's a good thing.
> 
>>> I still don't know what a "ref" or "object"
is.)
>> 
>> Fortunately, that's about the only thing in a git repository, so
there's not much more to learn :)
> 
> 
> That doesn't tell me anything. And unfortunately they are used in many
git commands.

Just in case you want to know more about objects and refs, you can read the
first sections of the chapter 9 of the free "Pro git" online book.

http://progit.org/book/ch9-0.html

This chapter is about git internal, so it may look a little complex and scary,
but it is really helpful to understand how git works.

-- Jean-Daniel

> Yes, it more complex than svn. No doubt. I'm personally very happy with
> the svn-git bridge - my only wish is it was updated more often.
The mirror is updated in the svn post-commit hook. How much often do
you want it updated? ;)

-- 
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

Am 03.09.2011 16:28, schrieb Jean-Daniel Dupas:
>
> This chapter is about git internal, so it may look a little complex and
scary,
I wouldn't start with that presentation. It explains far too many of the 
gory details, you'd risk overlooking the forest because the trees are in 
the way.

For a concise bird's eye view of git internals, look at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_%28software%29#Implementation .

A data model containing just four object types shouldn't scare anybody.
Particularly not anybody who knows about NFA->DFA conversion, LALR 
parsing, SSA, or register allocation.

Regards,
Jo

Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes:
>> Because you're missing so much.
>
> I read Dave's document. It lists (rather complex) ways to use it, but
> it doesn't list why any of them are needed for our workflow. That
> would go more towards convincing me that it's a good thing.
That document is meant to be a set of recipes.  Think of it as a HOWTO
for using git in the LLVM development environment.

An FAQ about "why git?" would be another worthy project.  I just
posted
a set of notes that could be the start of such a thing.

                             -Dave