Hubert Tong via llvm-dev
2019-Oct-15 19:26 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> I say retire it instantly. >+1. It has never been a real requirement to use the script. Using native svn is still viable until the point of the migration.> > > On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new > > thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script > > after the GitHub migration. > > > > The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when > > committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete. > > The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers > > from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history > non-linear. > > > > Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear > > History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear > > history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this. > > > > With this new development, the question I have is when should the > > git-llvm script become optional? Should we make it optional immediately, > > so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or > should we > > wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional? > > > > Thanks, > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cfe-dev mailing list > > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org > > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://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/20191015/747fc2a9/attachment.html>
Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
2019-Oct-16 04:26 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:26 PM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> I say retire it instantly. >> > +1. It has never been a real requirement to use the script. Using native > svn is still viable until the point of the migration. >It was a requirement for the "linear history" feature. With GitHub providing this now, I'm also +1 on retiring the tool unless there is a another use that can be articulated for it? -- Mehdi> > >> >> > On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev < >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new >> > thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script >> > after the GitHub migration. >> > >> > The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when >> > committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete. >> > The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers >> > from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history >> non-linear. >> > >> > Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear >> > History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear >> > history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this. >> > >> > With this new development, the question I have is when should the >> > git-llvm script become optional? Should we make it optional >> immediately, >> > so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or >> should we >> > wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it >> optional? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Tom >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > cfe-dev mailing list >> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org >> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://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/20191015/d6b45d46/attachment.html>
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2019-Oct-16 19:28 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 9:26 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:26 PM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> I say retire it instantly. >>> >> +1. It has never been a real requirement to use the script. Using native >> svn is still viable until the point of the migration. >> > > It was a requirement for the "linear history" feature. With GitHub > providing this now, I'm also +1 on retiring the tool unless there is a > another use that can be articulated for it? >I believe one thing mentioned was that if the tool was required, it could be used to enforce a do-not-branch policy. That's the thing I've seen discussed so far. (& questions as to whether that's worth it, whether there's other ways to enforce it, etc) - Dave> > -- > Mehdi > > > >> >> >>> >>> > On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev < >>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new >>> > thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script >>> > after the GitHub migration. >>> > >>> > The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when >>> > committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete. >>> > The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent >>> developers >>> > from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history >>> non-linear. >>> > >>> > Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear >>> > History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear >>> > history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this. >>> > >>> > With this new development, the question I have is when should the >>> > git-llvm script become optional? Should we make it optional >>> immediately, >>> > so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or >>> should we >>> > wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it >>> optional? >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Tom >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > cfe-dev mailing list >>> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://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/20191016/f1f7a843/attachment.html>
Philip Reames via llvm-dev
2019-Oct-17 18:16 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?
I'm also a strong proponent of not requiring the wrapper. The linear history piece was important enough to make the cost worth it. The extra branches piece really isn't. If someone creates a branch that's not supposed to exist, we just delete it. No big deal. It will happen, but the cost is so low I don't worry about it. There's a bunch of things in our developer policy we don't enforce except through social means. I don't see any reason why the "no branches" thing needs to be special. If we really want some automation, a simple script that polls for new branches every five minutes and deletes them unless on a while list would work just fine. :) Philip On 10/15/19 9:26 PM, Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev wrote:> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:26 PM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > I say retire it instantly. > > +1. It has never been a real requirement to use the script. Using > native svn is still viable until the point of the migration. > > > It was a requirement for the "linear history" feature. With GitHub > providing this now, I'm also +1 on retiring the tool unless there is a > another use that can be articulated for it? > > -- > Mehdi > > > > On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to > start a new > > thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the > git-llvm script > > after the GitHub migration. > > > > The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm > script when > > committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete. > > The reason we decided to do this was so that we could > prevent developers > > from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the > history non-linear. > > > > Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the > "Require Linear > > History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce > linear > > history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to > do this. > > > > With this new development, the question I have is when > should the > > git-llvm script become optional? Should we make it optional > immediately, > > so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from > day 1, or should we > > wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make > it optional? > > > > Thanks, > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cfe-dev mailing list > > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191017/cc1f4b8e/attachment-0001.html>