llvm dev - Oct 2019 - [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>

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>

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>

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>