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

James Y Knight via llvm-dev
2016-07-21T02:08:29Z

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Why every one take my comments as my own personal motives?
>
> I'm just the "consensus seeker". None of these ideas are
mine, I'm
> just echoing what was said in 320 emails, plus what was said in the
> past few years when people discussed about using pure Git.
>
> People in the IRC were saying I had ulterior motives, that I was
> pushing people to use GitHub or sub-modules, or whatever. This is
> *really* not cool.
>
> Every single thread so far has died down and I wrote a summary, and no
> one said anything. Then I created another thread, and wrote another
> summary. Once no one was disagreeing, I wrote the text.
>
> Now every one wants to disagree again. Seriously?


I really really sympathize.

I, too, had read the previous N-hundred messages as having mostly
opposition to a single repository solution, and, despite feeling it would
be better, had decided it would not be worth my time to push for it. I can
live with multi-repo, and I certainly want to move to git *more* than I
want to move to single-repo. And so, here we are -- you've developed a
complete proposal for the multi-repo solution, with a high degree of
consensus around it.

And, then, suddenly, in the last day or so, a bunch of support seems to
have shown up for the one-repo solution. Way more than *I'd* ever expected
for sure. Even from people I had thought were super-opposed to it turned
out not to be!

I'm also really sad to hear that people have been impugning your motives,
because you've done a tremendous amount of work to bring this to a
conclusion, and it *really* ought to be clear to everyone that you've been
doing an admirable job of driving towards consensus here, and basically
nothing more.

IMO, the only reason we can even have this conversation about a single-repo
reasonably now is because of your work in writing up clearly the scheme for
a multi-repo solution. So I hope you don't feel discouraged by this turn of
events! I personally put the entire credit of getting to this point on your
hard work.

But, anyways, +1 on a single-repo solution from me.

Before we can agree to merge to a single-repo, there's one further question
that must be resolved:

Should the layout in the merged repository be:
1) Like the "llvm-project" git repository is now:

<root>/llvm/
<root>/clang/
<root>/compiler-rt
...

2) Like the "ideal merged checkout" is now:
llvm/
llvm/tools/clang
llvm/projects/compiler-rt
...


I don't much care which of those is chosen. I have a slight preference for
#1, for ease of doing things like grep/log/etc on llvm by itself, excluding
all the other projects. But either way seems probably fine, and an
improvement over multiple repositories.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160720/8eb05cdd/attachment.html>