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>
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2019-Oct-17 19:14 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:17 AM Philip Reames via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> 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. :) >Yeah, that about sums up my feelings as well.> 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> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing listcfe-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://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/20191017/00a1590c/attachment.html>
Qiu Chaofan via llvm-dev
2019-Oct-18 02:41 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?
I think it's okay to auto-delete these unexpected branches by either cron job or GitHub webhook. But should the system send email to those branch creators notifying that their branch has been removed and attach the patch file? Or we need to clarify this in project's README or GitHub's project description. Regards, Qiu Chaofan
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2019-Oct-18 04:49 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?
I think it's a "Cross that bridge when we come to it" See if manual enforcement is sufficient - if it becomes a real problem that's too annoying to handle manually/culturally, then assess what sort of automation/enforcement seems appropriate for the situation we are in at that time. On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:42 PM Qiu Chaofan via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> I think it's okay to auto-delete these unexpected branches by either > cron job or GitHub webhook. But should the system send email to those > branch creators notifying that their branch has been removed and > attach the patch file? Or we need to clarify this in project's README > or GitHub's project description. > > Regards, > Qiu Chaofan > _______________________________________________ > 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/20191017/96d59dd1/attachment.html>