On 1 Jun 2016, at 17:02, John Criswell via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> > Regarding the issue of git sub-modules and keeping Clang/LLVM in sync, perhaps we should just put Clang and LLVM into a single git repository and add a CMake option to disable compilation of Clang (the same could be done for other LLVM sub-projects for which bisection and other nifty features require a single revision number to refer to code across projects). Keeping these projects in separate repositories is just more work, and I don't see what we're getting out of that extra effort.The thing that we’d gain by keeping them together is not breaking all of the people who have forks of the clang git repo. GitHub tracks 563 so far. David
>> Regarding the issue of git sub-modules and keeping Clang/LLVM in sync, perhaps we should just put Clang and LLVM into a single git repository and add a CMake option to disable compilation of Clang (the same could be done for other LLVM sub-projects for which bisection and other nifty features require a single revision number to refer to code across projects). Keeping these projects in separate repositories is just more work, and I don't see what we're getting out of that extra effort.I'm not sure we will benefit from having *all* the subprojects in the single repository. This might affect pull / clone time significantly. Think about having lld, lldb along with llvm + clang in the single main repo. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
2016-06-01 20:07 GMT+02:00 Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:> >> Regarding the issue of git sub-modules and keeping Clang/LLVM in sync, > perhaps we should just put Clang and LLVM into a single git repository and > add a CMake option to disable compilation of Clang (the same could be done > for other LLVM sub-projects for which bisection and other nifty features > require a single revision number to refer to code across projects). > Keeping these projects in separate repositories is just more work, and I > don't see what we're getting out of that extra effort. > > I'm not sure we will benefit from having *all* the subprojects in the > single repository. This might affect pull / clone time significantly. > Think about having lld, lldb along with llvm + clang in the single > main repo. > > -- > With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov > Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >I also find it bad idea to have it all in one repo. Right now when I develope clang-tidy, I don't have to recompile clang often because most of the commits in clang-estra doesn't require new clang fetures. This is pretty nice if work on 2 core machine. Piotr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160601/5c02eb6c/attachment.html>
Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:> I'm not sure we will benefit from having *all* the subprojects in the > single repository. This might affect pull / clone time significantly. > Think about having lld, lldb along with llvm + clang in the single > main repo.I have a personal setup just like this (via git-subtree) and updates are not slow at all. Even the initial clone is not bad. -David