[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] GitHub anyone?

Brian M. Rzycki via llvm-dev
Wed, 01 Jun 2016 18:57:44 -0000

+1 from me. Our company has very restrictive firewalls and the proxy setup
doesn't work with SVN and http. We have to use special machines in a DMZ
when we push changes to SVN.

To mitigate this we are able to use the individual git repos but that poses
problems for regression testing when we attempt to use git bisect. We
either have to try and find a "next nearest" commit for clang,
compiler-rt,
etc or use the unified repository llvm-project on github already.

Lastly, it's non-trivial from only the Git repos to reconstruct the code
that goes into a released compiler. I'd hope with this new submodule layout
it'd be as simple as git branch llvm-3.10-release and cmake.


On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Matthias Braun via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> So here's a straw-man proposal for a github migration:
>
> 1. Register an official github project with the llvm foundation.
> 2. Setup another (read-only) mirror of llvm.org/git at this github project
> 3. Make sure we have ala llvm-project-submodules setup in the official
> account. (Optional or necessary for the buildbots?)
> 4. Update the buildbots to pick up updates and commits from the official
> git repository
> 5. Update phabricator to pick up commits from the official git repository
> 6. Tell people living downstream to pick up commits from the official git
> repository
> 7. Make sure bisecting with llvm-project-submodules is a good experience
> 8. Give things time to settle. We could play some games like disabling the
> svn repository for a few hours on purpose so that people can test that
> their infrastructure has really become independent of the svn repository.
> 9. Review and update llvm documentation.
> 10. Review website links pointing to viewvc/klaus/phab etc. to point to
> github instead.
> ... Until this point nothing has changed for developers, it will just boil
> down to a lot of work for buildbot and other infrstructure owners ...
> 11. Collect peoples github account information, give them push access.
> Ideally while still locking the github repository somehow...
> 12. Switch svn repository to read-only and allow pushs to the github
> repository.
> 13. Disable/remove/archive the svn repository.
>
> - Matthias
>
> > On Jun 1, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Jun 1, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1 June 2016 at 17:02, John Criswell <jtcriswel at
gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Do you have a set of volunteers lined up to do such a
migration?
> Getting
> >>> people willing to do the migration will obviously be key, and
that was
> the
> >>> one thing I didn't see in the original email.
> >>
> >> Hi John,
> >>
> >> Well, first we need to know if people are in favour, then if the
> >> migration won't bring any serious problem, and then we can
think of a
> >> migration plan. :)
> >>
> >> So far, it seems people are mostly in favour, with a few that
reported
> >> being locked into SVN. I had anticipated that, and have proposed
> >> GitHub's SVN integration, which allows read-write access, so
it should
> >> be mostly ok. We need more tests on that side to be sure, though.
> >>
> >> The biggest problem we're facing right now is how to sync the
repos.
> >> The existing llvm-repos format with all projects as sub-modules
seem
> >> to be a good candidate, but I still haven't seen a consensus
on how
> >> we'd do that.
> >>
> >> About the migration plan, most people seem to agree a step-by-step
> >> process is necessary.
> >
> > I personnally disagree with that, see below.
> >
> >> So, first we move to git-only, possibly with
> >> sub-modules
> >
> > If you move to git-only without the rest of the
infrastructure/scripts,
> we're losing the convenience we have today with svn, and the "user
> experience" will not be so great. We may face resistance to this
change.
> > I advocate to first set it up till it reaches the point of "good
enough"
> in term of usability before actually migrating.
> >
> >> , then we move to GitHub/Lab/BB,
> >
> > It means we first need to host our git, write the tooling around it,
to
> then migrate to github. I don't see the benefit over migrating directly
to
> github: if people have to change their configuration, better have one
> single change.
> >
> >> then we move Phab to
> >> GitHub merge requests, etc.
> >
> > Phab to GitHub merge requests is a totally separate discussion IMO,
and
> this discussion can happen after a successful move.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Regarding volunteers, I haven't yet asked around yet, but
I'm sure we
> >> have enough interested people to help. If everything else fails,
I'm
> >> more than happy to do all of that myself. Though, I'd have to
learn a
> >> lot more about sub-modules than I know today, which is effectively
> >> nothing. :)
> >
> > I'll be happy to throw manpower into tooling/infrastructure to
make it
> happen.
> >
> > --
> > Mehdi
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160601/1d7bb3e5/attachment.html>