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

Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev
2016-08-10T01:14:13Z

> On Aug 9, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote:
>
> I don't see who would benefit from having libc++/libc++abi in the
megarepo since they are not coupled to either LLVM or Clang. Upstream changes to
other projects have no effect on libc++ and vise-versa so there is no need to
keep them in sync.
>
> For this reason libc++ should stay a separate repository, which can be
included in the megarepo as a sub-module. This avoids concerns about increasing
the cost of checking out and building libc++.
>
> There has also been a secondary discussion about libc++ supporting
out-of-tree builds, I'm unconvinced by arguments about the cost of cloning
LLVM when you only want libc++. Building and testing libc++ already requires a
LLVM checkout somewhere on the machine for LIT and  CMake modules, so the
additional cost is already there. I would be OK dropping out-of-tree support for
libc++ since they are hard to configure correctly and offer little benefit over
in-tree builds.

Two reasons libcxx needs to support out of tree builds.

(1) from a build system perspective we need to be able to build libcxx using
just-built clang which means an out-of-tree style configuration even if it seems
in-tree to the user.
(2) lots of people use libcxx without clang. Removing support for libcxx
building out of tree is unreasonable for end users. It might be reasonable for
developers, but end users need that ability.

-Chris

>
> /Eric
>
>
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Can we please stop with the attempts at persuading me to a mono-repo
approach? I really hate that my voicing criticism has resulted in a big “let’s
sway beanz” effort.
>>
>> Justin, the reality is I don’t think the benefits of a mono-repo
justify the costs if it includes all projects. I think the cost of a mono-repo
which excludes the runtime projects is lower, so I dislike it less. I can even
see (and agree with) some arguments in favor of LLVM, Clang and LLD being in the
same repository, but I don’t see it as solving a problem that needs to be
solved.
>>
>> Mehdi’s performance data and git-svn workflow does *nothing* to win me
over to your argument. All it says is that if we do your proposal I *might* be
able to keep the same git-svn workflows I use today. I say “might” because
nobody has addressed my original concerns about whether or not that workflow
would be dropped if we move to a PR based model, or how we would support
something similar in a PR model. I also think that the mono-repo might
discourage pull requests to the runtimes projects from users that don’t use
clang, which concerns me. Either way Mehdi’s information isn’t going to get me
to support your idea over the other proposal which offers me actual workflow
improvements.
>>
>> It isn’t even going to get me to a “meh”. While I don’t think the
proposal should be valued based on whether or not it gives me specifically
benefit, if it provides no benefit to me maintaining the status quo is better
than a change from my perspective.
>>
>> All that aside, I really don’t think anyone should be investing that
much time trying to appease me. While I am a loud voice, and I’m flattered that
people seem to want to make me change my opinions they are in fact just opinions
and preferences.
>>
>> At the end of the day we need some empirical data to drive this
decision, and I don’t consider the anecdotes on these threads to be that data.
While it is useful to hear the first hand opinions of people, it would be great
if we had some actual data. Even with quantifiable data it is unlikely that I
would consider the mono-repo an ideal workflow for myself, but it *could* be the
right solution for the community.  I would like to think that as a community we
will all be able to put the “greater good” above our own preferences.
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 9, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Justin Lebar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sorry, I was specially replying to 'I think we'd be
thrilled with a
>> > "meh" from your corner.’.  I didn’t feel like that was
helping the
>> > conversation along.
>> >
>> > Sorry if I offended anyone with this or sent the wrong message.  I
was
>> > trying to say, beanz was originally a strong, categorical opponent
to
>> > the monorepo.  After some discussion, he became not strongly
opposed
>> > to a monorepo, so long as it didn't contain the runtime
libraries.
>> > Now Mehdi had a proposal that I was hoping would take him to
>> > "not-strongly-opposed" to a monorepo that did contain
the runtime
>> > libraries.  Given where we came from, I would be very happy with
that
>> > outcome.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 9, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at
apple.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 9, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 9, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Pete Cooper via llvm-dev
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 9, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Justin Lebar via llvm-dev
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> (2) If I’m stuck using git-svn I kinda feel like there is no
real point in
>> >> changing anything.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No real point *for you specifically*.
>> >>
>> >> But the vast majority of people would not be stuck using
git-svn.  And
>> >> in addition the LLVM project would not be stuck using svn,
with all
>> >> the baggage, hosting issues, workflow issues (for people other
than
>> >> you), etc.
>> >>
>> >> The bar by which this proposal should be measured is not
"is it a net
>> >> gain for beanz?"  :)  I think we'd be thrilled with a
"meh" from your
>> >> corner.
>> >>
>> >> Justin, I don’t think this conversation is really going
anywhere.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I’m not sure what you’re referring to exactly, but in the
context of "this
>> >> thread isn’t getting anywhere”, I strongly disagree.
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I was specially replying to 'I think we'd be
thrilled with a "meh"
>> >> from your corner.’.  I didn’t feel like that was helping the
conversation
>> >> along.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> OK, I agree with you then :)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I agree with everything else you say about actually talking
about the
>> >> different proposals.  I hope my point is well received that we
really do
>> >> need to eventually describe the impact to daily workflow, once
the proposals
>> >> are far enough along to do so.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I agree with you also on this. I voiced in the past (on IRC
toward
>> >> Justin/David probably) that the proposal should include
examples of workflow
>> >> and how they translate to whatever the proposal will be.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> —
>> >> Mehdi
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Pete
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I believe that the recent workflow tests I performed (see my
last emails in
>> >> this thread) are proof that this thread has been productive,
and I believe
>> >> discussing here and hearing concerns from people (Chris and
others) are
>> >> necessary before getting a proposal fleshed out and having a
survey.
>> >>
>> >> Having a survey without getting to the end of *what* we want
to survey about
>> >> is non-sense to me.
>> >>
>> >> (That may miss your point, but your point wasn’t clear
either…).
>> >>
>> >> —
>> >> Mehdi
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Renato already mentioned talking about this at the conference,
and there has
>> >> also been talk of a survey.  I think we need those to see how
the community
>> >> actually feel about the proposals here.
>> >>
>> >> Chris may be the only vocal advocate of an alternative to your
proposal, but
>> >> then there are people like me who are quiet because we are
waiting for the
>> >> survey to appear.
>> >>
>> >> I would have been much more vocal if I thought we were
actually going to
>> >> adopt the monorepo, but for now I believe it is still only a
proposal.
>> >>
>> >> Full disclosure, I don’t want a monorepo.  I think it
optimizes for the use
>> >> case where people want to bisect, and I don’t think its
reasonable to push
>> >> on everyone to have a monorepo for those who want to bisect.
The submodules
>> >> repo has already been demonstrated as one potential solution
to this which
>> >> would allow those who want to bisect to do so, while everyone
else can
>> >> continue to work more or less as they do today.
>> >>
>> >> In terms of the proposals, I think you, Mehdi, Chris, and a
number of others
>> >> have proven that there is almost no technical solution beyond
our reach.
>> >> What we do have are proposals which optimize for different use
cases.  Given
>> >> this, I think the most useful thing from my point of view (and
hopefully to
>> >> others) would be for those advocating each different solution
to actual give
>> >> short examples of each of the different use cases and how to
support them.
>> >>
>> >> For example:
>> >>
>> >> Monorepo, pushing a change to compiler-rt:
>> >> 1: Git commit …
>> >> 2: Git pull --rebase
>> >> 3: test
>> >> 4 a: Git push /* no commits to any other project so the push
works */.  Goto
>> >> 5
>> >> 4 b: Git push /* someone committed to some other project in
the monorepo.
>> >> Goto 2 */
>> >> 5: Done
>> >>
>> >> I know that this example appears negative in the case where
someone else
>> >> committed to another project and a rebase is required, but
thats exactly the
>> >> point.  This is showing that this particular scenario is
potentially a
>> >> problem compared to today and/or other proposals.  A similar
workflow could
>> >> (should) be written for the sparse checkout monorepo, GitHub
monorepo with
>> >> svn, and submodules cases.  The submodules case will likely
show that
>> >> bisecting is more complex than on the monorepo, while pushing
is simpler.
>> >>
>> >> Similarly, the submodules workflow probably isn’t capable of a
single commit
>> >> to llvm and clang in the revlock case while the monorepo is,
but we as a
>> >> community need to decide whether we want to optimize for that
or not.  I
>> >> don’t have any data to suggest that revlock commits are
frequent/infrequent
>> >> or even a problem in general, and I don’t think we should
optimize for that
>> >> case unless its worth doing so.
>> >>
>> >> Only by actually showing the use cases we care about can the
community make
>> >> an educated decision about what these proposals actually mean
to our daily
>> >> workflow.  We can then choose what we are optimizing for.  I
personally want
>> >> to have a very simple list of repo’s to clone from (or just
one!) and for
>> >> pushing to be easy, because those are the actions I perform
the most often.
>> >> Others will have different use cases they care about and they
can choose the
>> >> proposal which suits them best.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Pete
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at
apple.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 9, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 8, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at
apple.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 8, 2016, at 5:09 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Jul 27, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Justin Lebar <jlebar at
google.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your thoughts, Chris.
>> >>
>> >> As supporting evidence of this, I was discussing this thread
yesterday
>> >> around the office yesterday and had quite a few people
responding something
>> >> along the lines of “they’re proposing what?”.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I hope they'll join us in this thread.
>> >>
>> >> Ultimately a survey is going to be strongly biased in favor of
"don't
>> >> change anything".  There is a strong psychological bias
to weight
>> >> losses more than gains, so if one doesn't engage with the
issue, it's
>> >> only natural to conclude "keep it as similar as possible
to what it is
>> >> today -- that is safe."  But that line of thinking does
not
>> >> necessarily lead us to the best outcome.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I don’t agree with this assertion. I believe that if you put
forth multiple
>> >> proposals, and have an articulate discussion of the merits and
costs of each
>> >> solution you can create a survey that can help inform decision
making. I
>> >> suppose we can agree to disagree.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We've heard in thread from a lot of developers about how a
monorepo
>> >> would improve their workflow.  I would love to hear from some
>> >> developers who are actually affected in the way you describe,
rather
>> >> than just considering the hypothetical.
>> >>
>> >> My expectation is that the effect of the monorepo on said
developers
>> >> would be relatively small -- we're talking about 1gb of
disk space.  I
>> >> understand that there's a "yuck" factor to this,
but inasmuch as there
>> >> aren't other concrete effects, this is just change
aversion.  And
>> >> essentially all of the other effects of the monorepo can be
hidden via
>> >> sparse checkouts, as we've discussed.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe I am wrong.  But I don't think we're going to
get to the bottom
>> >> of it without actually engaging with people who are actually
affected
>> >> in the way you posit.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ok, let me describe a few workflows I’ve used in the last year
that are (in
>> >> my mind) adversely impacted by a mono-repo.
>> >>
>> >> Case Study 1 - Simple development on a sub-project
>> >>
>> >> I build LLVM + Clang + Compiler-RT using the just-built Clang
to build
>> >> Compiler-RT. I iterate on some complicated Compiler-RT changes
over a period
>> >> of a day. Once my Compiler-RT changes are done I rebase the
compiler-rt
>> >> repo, rebuild compiler-rt then commit.
>> >>
>> >> With a mono-repo rebasing the checkout means rebasing the
whole tree. So,
>> >> either I have to wrangle some crazy git or CMake foo, or when
I run “ninja
>> >> compiler-rt” after the rebase it will rebuild LLVM and Clang
too. That kinda
>> >> sucks.
>> >>
>> >> What this example illustrates to me is that today we have
loosely coupled
>> >> projects with an occasional rev lock. Moving to a mono-repo
enforces a tight
>> >> coupling that isn’t strictly required today.
>> >>
>> >> Case Study 2 - Working on a sub-project in isolation across
many platforms
>> >>
>> >> I did a lot of work on Compiler-RT last year that had no
direct dependency
>> >> on any other LLVM project. During the development I was
working with a
>> >> Compiler-RT checkout and a build directory of just
Compiler-RT. Every once
>> >> in a while (or every other day as it were) I would make a
change that would
>> >> break a configuration that I wasn’t directly developing on. My
workflow for
>> >> handling those cases was:
>> >>
>> >> (1) Spin up a VM on a VPS that closely matched the
configuration I broke
>> >> (2) Checkout Compiler-RT
>> >> (3) Reproduce, debug, fix the failure
>> >> (4) Commit the patch from the VM
>> >>
>> >> In a mono-repository doing this would require checking out
*all*
>> >> sub-projects, not just Compiler-RT. I imagine this probably
isn’t a common
>> >> workflow, but it is one I use that would be adversely impacted
by needing to
>> >> checkout a full LLVM. Now, you might say I could check out the
sub-project
>> >> mirror, but then I can’t commit from the VM, which kinda
sucks.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So for the “I spin a VM and want to make a commit but don’t
want to download
>> >> a few hundred MBs with a git clone” story, it turns out that
the github
>> >> bridge with SVN helps to optimize with a “lean” checkout:
>> >>
>> >> I fork the unified repo here:
>> >> https://github.com/joker-eph/llvm-project/commits/master and
then:  svn co
>> >> https://github.com/joker-eph/llvm-project/trunk/compiler-rt
>> >>
>> >> So that’s a net “no regression” compared to the current state
:)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Is the github SVN interface's "co" magically as
fast as a git clone?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> $ time svn co
https://github.com/joker-eph/llvm-project/trunk/compiler-rt
>> >> ….
>> >> real 0m8.539s user 0m0.919s  sys 0m1.917s
>> >> $ time git clone https://github.com/joker-eph/compiler-rt.git
>> >> real 0m5.487s user 0m1.208s sys 0m0.825s
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That’s actually not terrible! Color me impressed.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If not, it is a performance regression because today I use git
clone and
>> >> git-svn on my VMs just like on my physical machines, and
either way it adds
>> >> some crazy complexity.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No problem, I get it, exactly same workflow as today:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yep. Which isn’t bad. I do however have two concerns.
>> >>
>> >> (1) What happens if we move to pull request-based workflows?
Do we still
>> >> support this workflow?
>> >> (2) If I’m stuck using git-svn I kinda feel like there is no
real point in
>> >> changing anything. I dislike this workflow less than the
earlier proposals,
>> >> but I see no reason to move to this instead of staying on SVN
(other than
>> >> the hosting issues which could be solved in other ways).
>> >>
>> >> -Chris
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> # Clone from the single read-only git repo
>> >> $ git clone https://github.com/joker-eph/compiler-rt.git
>> >> …
>> >> # Configure the SVN remote and initialize the svn metadata
>> >> $ cd compiler-rt
>> >> $ git svn init
https://github.com/joker-eph/llvm-project/trunk/compiler-rt
>> >> —username>> >> $ git config svn-remote.svn.fetch
:refs/remotes/origin/master
>> >> $ git svn rebase -l
>> >> ...
>> >> # Remove and empty file and commit with git
>> >> $ git rm empty
>> >> $ git commit -m "remove empty file"
>> >> # commit/push with svn to the unified git repo
>> >> $ git svn dcommit
>> >> Committing to
https://github.com/joker-eph/llvm-project/trunk/compiler-rt
>> >> ...
>> >> D empty
>> >> Committed r354148
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Here is the commit:
>> >>
https://github.com/joker-eph/llvm-project/commit/5f7e977c8cf3c33153d91be9b556143b49911ebe
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> —
>> >> Mehdi
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> While admittedly you do get a linear history with using the
mono-repository,
>> >> that isn’t the only way to solve the problem, and I don’t
really think that
>> >> the benefit (not needing to write some tooling) justifies the
increased
>> >> burden applied to contributors that don’t use the full LLVM
family of
>> >> projects.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I think the trade-off you're considering here (cost to
developers who
>> >> use llvm plus a version-locked subrepo vs. cost to developers
who
>> >> don't want an llvm clone) is the right one.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I actually think there are *a lot* more considerations we need
to be making
>> >> for an infrastructure change like this. While it is true that
our SCM
>> >> hosting strategy primarily impacts developers, it also impacts
our users. We
>> >> should be conscious of the impact to downstream users in
making
>> >> infrastructure changes like this. That is part of why the idea
of a survey
>> >> holds appeal to me; it would give us the opportunity to get
feedback from a
>> >> much wider audience than the current “people on llvm-dev who
haven’t been
>> >> scared away”.
>> >>
>> >> But as someone who has
>> >> extensively used git submodules and repo (a wrapper script), I
>> >> strongly disagree with the judgement that a monorepo would not
be a
>> >> significant improvement.
>> >>
>> >> Our primary disagreement, I think, is over how much cost there
is to
>> >> "writing some tooling".  To me, this is a
significant barrier standing
>> >> in the way of developer productivity.  Here at Google I did a
quick
>> >> survey, and more than half of us don't have scripts of the
sort that
>> >> Justin Bogner described.  We are all just floundering around
rebasing
>> >> clang and llvm until it compiles.  It *sucks*.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I actually think we’re both talking about solutions that
require tooling,
>> >> and while we *could* be disagreeing over how much effort each
tooling
>> >> initiative would require (I think they’re pretty close, so I
don’t care to
>> >> have that argument), my actual disagreement with your proposal
is that it is
>> >> a change that impacts developers and users universally and I
don’t think
>> >> that it is justified. Simply put, I don’t feel that the
benefits are
>> >> substantial enough to warrant the kind of disruptive change
you’re
>> >> proposing.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I suggest that saying that all of these developers are
"doing it
>> >> wrong" is not helpful.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think I said anyone
was “doing it
>> >> wrong”. Bisecting across multiple git repositories isn’t a
great experience.
>> >> But neither is bisecting across a half dozen separate folders
in an SVN
>> >> repository. Both the submodule solution and the mono-repo
solution solve
>> >> this problem equivalently well.
>> >>
>> >> Not everyone has the git and python/bash chops
>> >> to write the necessary scripts.  Not everyone has the
personality to
>> >> obsessively script around stuff, or the desire to maintain
said
>> >> scripts.  Not everyone works on llvm/clang so much that
it's worth
>> >> adopting a special-snowflake workflow.  And some of us --
myself
>> >> included -- have extensive git scripts which work with the
standard
>> >> git workflow but would be completely broken by adding a custom
level
>> >> of indirection around git.
>> >>
>> >> When put this way, maybe it's clear that it's actually
a niche set of
>> >> people for whom "script around the brokenness" is a
good solution.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I’m not sure what “brokenness” you’re referring to. We have a
collection of
>> >> loosely connected projects by design. As a result of that
intentional design
>> >> certain workflows will be impacted. I don’t think that is
brokenness. I
>> >> think our loose coupling is a feature even if it makes some
workflows
>> >> harder.
>> >>
>> >> -Chris
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As I've said a bunch of times above, we have to weigh a
cost paid by
>> >> all of us every time we type a command that starts with
"git" --
>> >> something we do tens or hundreds of times a day -- versus the
one-time
>> >> cost of asking people to download 1gb of data.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I’m just now catching up on this massive thread after being on
vacation last
>> >> week, and I have a few thoughts I’d like to share.
>> >>
>> >> First and foremost please don’t consider lack of dissent on
the thread as
>> >> presence of consensus. The various git-related threads on
LLVM-dev lately
>> >> have been so active and contentious that I think a lot of
people are zoning
>> >> out on the conversations. As supporting evidence of this, I
was discussing
>> >> this thread yesterday around the office yesterday and had
quite a few people
>> >> responding something along the lines of “they’re proposing
what?”.
>> >>
>> >> I think it would be great for us to have several different
proposals for how
>> >> the git-transition could work, and have a survey to get
people’s opinions. I
>> >> know this has been discussed repeatedly, and I want to put in
my vote in
>> >> favor of having a survey that takes into account multiple
different
>> >> approaches.
>> >>
>> >> WRT the actual proposal in this thread, I’m strongly opposed
to a
>> >> mono-repository. While I understand the argument that the full
clone’s cost
>> >> on disk space is minimal compared to an LLVM object directory,
what about
>> >> for contributors that contribute to the smaller runtimes
projects but *not*
>> >> to LLVM or Clang. A contributor that only contributes to
libcxx or
>> >> compiler-rt being forced to do a full clone of all the LLVM
projects in
>> >> order to push a patch kinda sucks.
>> >>
>> >> I want to point out a few workflows people may not be
considering.
>> >>
>> >> Clang can be built against an installed LLVM. I know this
workflow is used
>> >> by some people because I’ve broken it in the past and had to
fix it. With a
>> >> mono-repo this workflow gets a bit more complicated because
you’d need to do
>> >> sparse checkouts, and it probably means we should just nuke
the workflow
>> >> entirely because there is no real value added by having it.
>> >>
>> >> Compiler-RT’s sanitizers are used with GCC; no LLVM required.
While for the
>> >> common use case maintaining sparse repository mirrors would
limit impact of
>> >> this on users, should any GCC user want to contribute to
Compiler-RT, you’re
>> >> forcing them to clone a much larger repository than necessary.
>> >>
>> >> The same problem with Compiler-RT’s sanitizers also applies to
libcxx,
>> >> libcxxabi, libunwind, and potentially any other runtime
library projects
>> >> that we may create in the future.
>> >>
>> >> Beyond all that I want to point out that the git
multi-repository story is
>> >> basically the same thing we have today with SVN except for the
absence of a
>> >> monotonically increasing number that corresponds across
repositories. While
>> >> admittedly you do get a linear history with using the
mono-repository, that
>> >> isn’t the only way to solve the problem, and I don’t really
think that the
>> >> benefit (not needing to write some tooling) justifies the
increased burden
>> >> applied to contributors that don’t use the full LLVM family of
projects.
>> >>
>> >> I think we have some pretty strong evidence in the form of the
github fork
>> >> counts (https://github.com/llvm-mirror/) that most people
aren’t using all
>> >> of the LLVM projects. In fact, by that evidence Clang (the
second most
>> >> popular project) is forked less than 2/3 as many times as
LLVM.
>> >>
>> >> -Chris
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Jul 26, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 26 July 2016 at 19:28, Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Even if it were possible, I would still keep my upstream
checkout
>> >> separate just as a safety measure, to keep from sending
private stuff
>> >> upstream by accident.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Just FYI, this is our (Azul's) workflow as well, and for
similar
>> >> reasons.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Same here.
>> >>
>> >> cheers,
>> >> --renato
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160809/53636101/attachment-0001.html>