llvm dev - Jul 2016 - [RFC] One or many git repositories?

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Justin Lebar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> > I would like to (re-)open a discussion on the following specific
> question:
> >
> >   Assuming we are moving the llvm project to git, should we
> >   a) use multiple git repositories, linked together as subrepositories
> > of an umbrella repo, or
> >   b) use a single git repository for most llvm subprojects.
> >
> > The current proposal assembled by Renato follows option (a), but I
> > think option (b) will be significantly simpler and more effective.
> > Moreover, I think the issues raised with option (b) are either
> > incorrect or can be reasonably addressed.
> >
> > Specifically, my proposal is that all LLVM subprojects that are
> > "version-locked" (and/or use the common CMake build system)
live in a
> > single git repository.  That probably means all of the main llvm
> > subprojects other than the test-suite and maybe libc++.  From looking
> > at the repository today that would be: llvm, clang, clang-tools-extra,
> > lld, polly, lldb, llgo, compiler-rt, openmp, and parallel-libs.
>
> FWIW, I'm opposed. I'm not convinced that the problems with
multiple
> repos are any worse than the problems with a single repo, which makes
> this more or less just change for the sake of change, IMO.
>
Just my experience, but having worked extensively with both, the single
integrated repository is *much* nicer.

-- Sean Silva

> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160720/ca4b2f67/attachment-0001.html>

Can this conversation be moved to a -projects or -infra or
-somewhere-else place.. pretty please. While I have my own opinions -
I don't think my feedback would be heard over the voices of loud
contributors - as such and probably being in the same bucket as many
others on this list, kindly resolve this issue in another channel of
communication - again please set this up and stop flooding a developer
list with -infra issues.



On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Justin Lebar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
>> > I would like to (re-)open a discussion on the following specific
>> > question:
>> >
>> >   Assuming we are moving the llvm project to git, should we
>> >   a) use multiple git repositories, linked together as
subrepositories
>> > of an umbrella repo, or
>> >   b) use a single git repository for most llvm subprojects.
>> >
>> > The current proposal assembled by Renato follows option (a), but I
>> > think option (b) will be significantly simpler and more effective.
>> > Moreover, I think the issues raised with option (b) are either
>> > incorrect or can be reasonably addressed.
>> >
>> > Specifically, my proposal is that all LLVM subprojects that are
>> > "version-locked" (and/or use the common CMake build
system) live in a
>> > single git repository.  That probably means all of the main llvm
>> > subprojects other than the test-suite and maybe libc++.  From
looking
>> > at the repository today that would be: llvm, clang,
clang-tools-extra,
>> > lld, polly, lldb, llgo, compiler-rt, openmp, and parallel-libs.
>>
>> FWIW, I'm opposed. I'm not convinced that the problems with
multiple
>> repos are any worse than the problems with a single repo, which makes
>> this more or less just change for the sake of change, IMO.
>
>
> Just my experience, but having worked extensively with both, the single
> integrated repository is *much* nicer.
>
> -- Sean Silva
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

On 20 July 2016 at 20:01, C Bergström <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
wrote:
> Can this conversation be moved to a -projects or -infra or
> -somewhere-else place.. pretty please.
No. This affects a large part of the LLVM community and llvm-dev is
the most universal place we have to discuss such issues at the moment.

Feel free to help us set up a better list so your delicate
collaborators aren't bombarded with e-mails if you want, but that's a
separate discussion.

Tim.