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

Sean Silva via llvm-dev
Fri, 22 Jul 2016 09:03:32 -0000

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Simon Taylor via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>  I’ll start by saying I’ve skimmed this thread and am not actually a user
> of LLVM at all, but had some git thoughts that might be worth contributing.
>
> > On 22 Jul 2016, at 01:16, Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > @David Chisnall and others with local forks: can you spot any
> > potential issues with Mehdi's plan?  Are there cases where it
won't
> > work?
>
> One potential “issue” is that a single commit into the monolithic
> repository would potentially touch multiple subprojects (that’s one of the
> advantages). Projecting that into individual repositories would only commit
> changes to those files, but the commit message would be maintained and
> might therefore be confusing in the context of the individual repository,
> especially if only a small part of the commit affects that individual
> sub-repo.
>

What do we do now? We already have the ability to do this. See the thread
"[LLVMdev] [Git-fu] How to commit inter-repositories atomically to
svn"

-- Sean Silva


>
> Essentially if the projects are “supposed” to be separate modules, then
> submodules is the solution to enforce that independence, ensuring commits
> in each module only affect that module and have appropriate commit messages
> for that context.
>
> If the submodules are in practice more intertwined then that then it does
> feel like an ideologically pure solution that in the end just gets in the
> way of developer productivity.
>
> I’ve got a setup here that uses a hierarchy of submodules, so there is a
> “combined” submodule that just ensures that it’s children (other
> submodules) are at mutually compatible versions. That helped productivity
> (multiple consumers of the “combined” submodule don’t need to manually
> track versions of all the children) but this discussion is pushing me
> towards the thought that actually a monorepo would be a more productive
> solution anyway, and make more sense for cross-cutting changes.
>
> And sorry to throw another option into the ring; and one that might
> already have been discussed and discounted, but thought it worth sharing.
>
> 1) Create a new llvm-project-mono repo
> 2) Use git subtree instead of git submodule to add all the directories to
> match the layout of llvm-project.
> 3) From now on, all commits go to the monorepo
> 4) monorepo commits can be projected to the individual project repos, and
> additionally a new commit on llvm-project can be made with the submodule
> version updates
>
> Advantages:
>
> - No change for existing downstream users unless they want to move to the
> mono view
> - Easier developer experience for cross-cutting changes
> - Git log by path would work identically on either view of the repository
> - Hashes from before the creation of the mono repo would match in both
> views - the mono repo will have multiple roots but that’s not unusual with
> git subtree
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> - Step 4 from my list would need a script to keep things updated. A
> server-side hook would be best. The mapping is deterministic (every mono
> repo commit will map to one commit in any affected submodules and one
> “submodule update” commit in the umbrella llvm-project repo), so if the
> server responsible falls over the updates might be delayed but can be
> caught up without losing anything
> - Less ideologically pure in terms of trying to keep the modules
> independent
> - Commit hashes will diverge between the two views from the creation of
> the mono repo, making comparisons / merges between clones of the different
> views more difficult
>
>
> Simon
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160722/ade8a6a5/attachment.html>