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

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

On Sep 8, 2011, at 12:40 PM, FlyLanguage wrote:
> 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.
> 
My two cents. All of the reasons why people like git are fine. I have no problem
with that. For me, the question is "why do we *need* to switch our
versioning system?". Nothing is broken with our current model. The things
I've heard against SVN appear to be relatively minor inconveniences. And we
do have a git repo for those who wish to use the newest, most fangled thing. :-)

-bw

Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes:
>> Let's face it, Joe Dragon is pretty much happy with svn and
there's an
>> svn-git bridge for the rest of us.
The svn-git bridge is broken as several people stated before.  It is
easier to contribute code via the gateway but it causes headaches when
one updates one's working git clone after submitting through dcommit.
The git pull generates all kinds of false conflicts.  This is because
svn doesn't understand git history and never will.

git-svn will never be a replacement for git.
> For me, the question is "why do we *need* to switch our versioning
> system?". Nothing is broken with our current model. 
There are things broken with the current model, though you may not care
about them.  It is not possible to conveniently keep a private copy of
LLVM and associated projects and sync regularly with upstream.  It flat
out sucks.  This is because the svn model is fundamentally opposed to
the idea of private repositories.  There's One True Repository and
that's it.

In other words, svn is not a distributed SCM.  It has long struck me as
odd that a project whose license encourages private copies would stick
with an SCM that has no support for keeping such copies.

You may not care, but don't claim the current model is not broken.
> The things I've heard against SVN appear to be relatively minor
> inconveniences. 
I assure you, they are not.
> And we do have a git repo for those who wish to use the newest, most
> fangled thing. :-)
No, we don't.  We have a git-svn mirror which is crippled compared to
native git.

                             -Dave

On Sep 8, 2011, at 12:40 PM, FlyLanguage wrote:
> 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.
I completely agree with both of these points.

-Chris