On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:24:08PM -0400, Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev wrote:> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Renato Golin via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Folks, > > > > There has been some discussion on IRC about SVN hosting and the perils > > of doing it ourselves. The consensus on the current discussion was > > that moving to a Git-only solution would have some disvantages, but > > many advantages. Furthermore, not hosting our own repos would save us > > a lot of headaches, admin costs and timed out connections. > > Not everyone thinks git is a step forward. Please do not force people > to use a "git-only" solution.Amen.> > 2. Due to SVN, we have a mandatory time sequence, so commits go first > > in LLVM, then Clang (for example), and buildbots don't get lost. If we > > use submodules [1], we can have a similar relationship, but in a more > > explicit way, and the problem could be solved elegantly. > > I actually consider the monotonically increasing revisions to be a > feature, but not sufficient to warrant a decision one way or the > other.Has the situation with git-submodules and bisect improved at all or is bisecting clang+llvm going to be manual mess? Joerg
> On May 31, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:24:08PM -0400, Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev wrote: >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Renato Golin via cfe-dev >> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> There has been some discussion on IRC about SVN hosting and the perils >>> of doing it ourselves. The consensus on the current discussion was >>> that moving to a Git-only solution would have some disvantages, but >>> many advantages. Furthermore, not hosting our own repos would save us >>> a lot of headaches, admin costs and timed out connections. >> >> Not everyone thinks git is a step forward. Please do not force people >> to use a "git-only" solution. > > Amen. > >>> 2. Due to SVN, we have a mandatory time sequence, so commits go first >>> in LLVM, then Clang (for example), and buildbots don't get lost. If we >>> use submodules [1], we can have a similar relationship, but in a more >>> explicit way, and the problem could be solved elegantly. >> >> I actually consider the monotonically increasing revisions to be a >> feature, but not sufficient to warrant a decision one way or the >> other. > > Has the situation with git-submodules and bisect improved at all or is > bisecting clang+llvm going to be manual mess?I found bisecting with submodules (in another project) far superior to the manual mess I have to do in clang+llvm today. - Matthias
> On May 31, 2016, at 1:42 PM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On May 31, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:24:08PM -0400, Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev wrote: >>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Renato Golin via cfe-dev >>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> There has been some discussion on IRC about SVN hosting and the perils >>>> of doing it ourselves. The consensus on the current discussion was >>>> that moving to a Git-only solution would have some disvantages, but >>>> many advantages. Furthermore, not hosting our own repos would save us >>>> a lot of headaches, admin costs and timed out connections. >>> >>> Not everyone thinks git is a step forward. Please do not force people >>> to use a "git-only" solution. >> >> Amen. >> >>>> 2. Due to SVN, we have a mandatory time sequence, so commits go first >>>> in LLVM, then Clang (for example), and buildbots don't get lost. If we >>>> use submodules [1], we can have a similar relationship, but in a more >>>> explicit way, and the problem could be solved elegantly. >>> >>> I actually consider the monotonically increasing revisions to be a >>> feature, but not sufficient to warrant a decision one way or the >>> other. >> >> Has the situation with git-submodules and bisect improved at all or is >> bisecting clang+llvm going to be manual mess? > I found bisecting with submodules (in another project) far superior to the manual mess I have to do in clang+llvm today.To be more exact here: I usually do not checkout llvm svn at a higher level because that forces me back to svn (which last time I used it did not have built-in support for bisection, not sure if that changed recently). So while I have a consistent state in svn I spend the time manually calculating the next commit to checkout. So what I do instead is using git for bisecting and having some (brittle) scripts that sync multiple git repositories to use a commit from the same time! - Matthias -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160531/401aa866/attachment.html>