> On May 31, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Chris Lattner via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> On May 31, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Personally, I’m hugely in favor of moving llvm’s source hosting to github
at some point, despite the fact that I continue to dislike git as a tool and
consider monotonicly increasing version numbers to be hugely beneficial.
>
> The killer feature to me is the community aspects of github, allowing
people to get involved in the project more easily and make “drive by”
contributions through the pull request model. Github also has a very scriptable
interface, allowing integration of external bug trackers etc into the workflow
(which is good, because its bugtracker is anemic).
Full agreed.
>
>> 4. We currently host our own SVN/Git, ViewVC and Klaus, Phabricator,
>> etc. Not only this incurs in additional admin cost, but it also gets
>> outdated, locally modified, and it needs to be backed up, etc. GitHub
>> gives all that for us for free.
>
> Yes, it would be great to get out of this business.
Yep.
>> 6. GitHub has automated testing of merge requests, meaning we can have
>> pre-commit tests enabled on a set of fast bots, triggered by
GitHub's
>> own validation hooks.
>
> This works pretty well. The major problem is with tests that are flakey.
Performance can also be an issue; it takes a bunch of fast bots to keep up with
developers testing their pull requests, especially when what you’re testing is a
very large C++ code base. That said, “test and merge on success” workflows are
*wonderful* for keeping the buildbots happy.
- Doug