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

Justin Lebar via llvm-dev
2016-07-29T03:28:44Z

> I would appreciate it if someone would put together a succint proposal
that strips out the rest of the thread (unless I have missed it). This
would help to center the discussion and involve more people in the
discussion.

Majnemer is on it.  Hope to get this for you soon.

-Justin

> From a quick skim, it definitely seems like this whole proposal is about
optimizing for a specific use-case, producing a clang based toolchain. But
I really can not say without spending an hour or two reading the whole
thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>>
>> So - for my use-case I don't have strong feelings one way or the
other*.
That said, something about the discussion so far strikes me as dissonant:
If we're going to break out some sub-projects (the test-suite for licensing
reasons, the runtimes for modularity) then it's not really a mono-repo any
more. It's a multi-repo where we've collapsed some (but not all) of the
existing repos. To the extent that we have to build tooling to support
multiple-repos (auto-mergers for test bots, command line utils for devs who
want the main repo plus tests plus ...), could we re-use that to keep the
existing modular project setup? This might be a fairly low-benefit
proposition if the tools we develop were only usable by in-tree projects,
but there are many other users of LLVM (Swift leaps to mind since I'm at
Apple, but there are many others) who might appreciate the ability to use
LLVM-provided tools to pick-and-mix LLVM projects into their repos.
Otherwise, every downstream user will have to roll some version of these
tools themselves.
>>
>> - Lang.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28 July 2016 at 22:12, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com>
wrote:
>>> > It is worth pointing out the Jenkins job that runs that is a
playground I setup for myself. It is nowhere near production ready, and it
will fail frequently as I iterate messing around with
it.
>>>
>>> Sure, I think that's implied.
>>>
>>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160728/fae0cc30/attachment.html>