Greg Fitzgerald
2012-Nov-17 17:11 UTC
[LLVMdev] Poll: Do you prefer Git or SVN for LLVM development?
For starters, I hope the results of this poll can help guide how the GettingStarted page is written. http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html I'd imagine the most active contributors do not find themselves referencing this page too often, but as a newcomer, I feel it could use some work. Git is second class, CMake gets nothing but a passing reference, and Ninja is not even mentioned. Depending on the results of this poll, I'd be interested in rewriting it such that Git is the preferred way to get LLVM, CMake is how you configure it, and that you can tell CMake to generate any of several build systems including GNU Make, Ninja or XCode. Furthermore, should we find that few people use SVN and someone wants to integrate with a package manager, he or she should feel little obligation to support two version control systems. Likewise, if a code-owner wants to introduce a code review tool, he or she should not have to reduce its functionality to the intersection of the git and subversion feature sets. Thanks, Greg On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote:> Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> writes: > >> I'm curious to know if the LLVM community is deeply split when it >> comes to version control. If you have a second, could you please >> vote? >> >> http://poll.pollcode.com/i597kq > > The result of this poll has little value in practice. In the past the > project leader stated that the opinions of the most active contributors > outweight the rest of the community. So the poll should be conducted > among the most active N contributors, ignoring the rest. > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Sean Silva
2012-Nov-17 22:48 UTC
[LLVMdev] Poll: Do you prefer Git or SVN for LLVM development?
> I'd imagine the most active contributors do not find themselves > referencing this page too often, but as a newcomer, I feel it could > use some work.This has been in the back of my mind for a while, and I think it is probably true. I think that it would be more useful if you did a poll specifically aimed at new contributors (simple rough criterion: new contributor ==doesn't have commit access), since as you pointed out, they are the audience of these documents. Also, make sure that cfe-dev gets included in the vote. The current thread is only on llvmdev.> Git is second class, CMake gets nothing but a passing > reference, and Ninja is not even mentioned. Depending on the results > of this poll, I'd be interested in rewriting it such that Git is the > preferred wayBetter idea: something like: ----------- There are two major orthogonal decisions involved with getting started with LLVM development: 1. You have to be able to get and sync the source code, which can be done with either SVN <link> or Git <link>. 2. You have to build the code, which can be done with configure/make <link> or CMake <link>. ----------- And then we have a 4 pages: developing with SVN, developing with git, building with configure/make, and building with CMake. This is no more difficult than what you suggest, and it lets people choose whatever they feel most comfortable with. -- Sean Silva On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:> For starters, I hope the results of this poll can help guide how the > GettingStarted page is written. > > http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html > > I'd imagine the most active contributors do not find themselves > referencing this page too often, but as a newcomer, I feel it could > use some work. Git is second class, CMake gets nothing but a passing > reference, and Ninja is not even mentioned. Depending on the results > of this poll, I'd be interested in rewriting it such that Git is the > preferred way to get LLVM, CMake is how you configure it, and that you > can tell CMake to generate any of several build systems including GNU > Make, Ninja or XCode. > > Furthermore, should we find that few people use SVN and someone wants > to integrate with a package manager, he or she should feel little > obligation to support two version control systems. Likewise, if a > code-owner wants to introduce a code review tool, he or she should not > have to reduce its functionality to the intersection of the git and > subversion feature sets. > > Thanks, > Greg > > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >> Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> writes: >> >>> I'm curious to know if the LLVM community is deeply split when it >>> comes to version control. If you have a second, could you please >>> vote? >>> >>> http://poll.pollcode.com/i597kq >> >> The result of this poll has little value in practice. In the past the >> project leader stated that the opinions of the most active contributors >> outweight the rest of the community. So the poll should be conducted >> among the most active N contributors, ignoring the rest. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Chris Lattner
2012-Nov-18 00:39 UTC
[LLVMdev] Poll: Do you prefer Git or SVN for LLVM development?
On Nov 17, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote:>> Git is second class, CMake gets nothing but a passing >> reference, and Ninja is not even mentioned. Depending on the results >> of this poll, I'd be interested in rewriting it such that Git is the >> preferred way > > Better idea: something like: > > ----------- > There are two major orthogonal decisions involved with getting started > with LLVM development: > > 1. You have to be able to get and sync the source code, which can be > done with either SVN <link> or Git <link>. > 2. You have to build the code, which can be done with configure/make > <link> or CMake <link>. > ----------- > > And then we have a 4 pages: developing with SVN, developing with git, > building with configure/make, and building with CMake. This is no more > difficult than what you suggest, and it lets people choose whatever > they feel most comfortable with.Makes sense to me. They can even be four different sections of the same page... -Chris
Apparently Analagous Threads
- [LLVMdev] Poll: Do you prefer Git or SVN for LLVM development?
- [LLVMdev] Poll: Do you prefer Git or SVN for LLVM development?
- [LLVMdev] Poll: Do you prefer Git or SVN for LLVM development?
- [LLVMdev] Poll Results: Do you prefer Git or SVN for LLVM development?
- [LLVMdev] Poll Results: Do you prefer Git or SVN for LLVM development?