llvm dev - May 2020 - RFC: Deleting git-svn folder (git-llvm, git-svnrevert, git-svnup)

For some reason this thread seems to be gone in a wrong direction. I'm 
sorry for that.


The discussion on the RFC asked for a reason to keep the script, I think 
we heard reasons to do so (due to branches).

Now, I was unable to determine if the `git llvm` scripts was removed 
"just as part of the bunch" or if we expect a problem with the script.

If it is the former, are there reasons against adding it back?


Thanks,

   Johannes


On 5/12/20 5:13 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:56 PM Johannes Doerfert <
> johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> TBH, all I initially asked for, still ask for, is a reason why `git
>> llvm` was being removed.
>
> Fair enough - and 24 hours later no one had replied to your inquiry - I
> don't think that's a huge deal, to be honest - I've certainly
had to
> follow-up with higher email latencies than that pretty regularly. Eric had
> replied to someone else's question pretty reasonably "what do I
use
> instead?" "git push" (what most people have been using since
the transition)
>> Your email was the only one that hinted on a
>> reason.
>>
> I think the original proposal & response covered that - they seem(ed)
like
> dead code ("My understanding of these tools is that they were useful
for
> when we were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the migration is
> complete, they can be deleted as they are either unnecessary or there are
> other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push --> git
push).") -
> some folks agreed, and time was given in case anyone had use cases they
> wanted to bring up & didn't.
>
>> (more below)
>>
>> On 5/12/20 4:00 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>>   > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:50 PM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev
<
>>   > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>   >
>>   >> @Zola, Eric,
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> I really feel the communication and reasoning here is
problematic.
>>   >>
>>   >> From my perspective, you removed stuff "we don't
need", ignoring
>> whether
>>   >> it is used, and then let people figure out how to deal with
the result.
>>   >>
>>   >> What I most dislike about the process most is how questions
and
>> concerns
>>   >> are then ignored or played down.
>>   >>
>>   > Honestly, I think Zola did more than I'd have expected to be
done for
>> this
>>   > - sending out the proposal (to llvm-dev, not just llvm-commits,
even) &
>>   > waiting a week for feedback.
>>
>> Sure. That is why I did not mention the process that lead to the
situation.
>> I think my email/questions are well in line with post-commit review
>> standards but people seem to disagree.
>>
> I don't think your first email was unreasonable/not sure anyone's
saying it
> was unreasonable?
>
>
>>> Suggesting that LLVM developers (the, apparently rather small
(based on
>>   > feedback from before/after this change) number of them) migrate
to the
>>   > standard git functionality for contributing to git projects
seems
>> like it's
>>   > in line with discussions I recall seeing before and after the
git
>> migration
>>   > - that the git-llvm scripts were migration tools (there was some
>> discussion
>>   > about whether they might be used for more post-migration, to
enforce
>>   > certain constraints, etc - but those ideas were not
accepted/moved
>> forward
>>   > with).
>>
>> I recall no decision being made back in October 2019 and that we will
>> see how it goes. Till now I thought it went fine, or at least I
haven't
>> understood what needed fixing.
>>
> I think the migration went fine, yes - but these scripts seem to me like a
> vestige of the hybrid situation & no longer needed/especially
beneficial.
>
>
>>> I have some concern about adding these scripts back in as they may
>> lead to
>>   > greater divergence in developer experience and/or become less
>> relevant over
>>   > time and a weird thing for newcomers to stumble over, perhaps.
But I
>> don't
>>   > feel /that/ strongly, if other folks particularly prefer using
them,
>> they
>>   > seem mostly harmless.
>>
>> I don't think I understand your concerns. Could you elaborate what
>> divergence you can see in the future? FWIW, if the scripts are broken
>> and people stumble over them it means no one takes care of them and
>> removal is adequate.
>>
> I'd generally prefer to remove things sooner rather than later,
personally.
> I believe some of the original motivation was an offline discussion about
> adding more features (to trim unnecessary Phabricator fields, I believe) to
> them & a response was that they're not really used/encouraged &
so adding
> features wouldn't be especially valuable - so the thought was to go the
> other way, rather than keeping them around, and building processes that
> might only work with the scripts & then being let down when those
processes
> aren't adhered to by most of the community (because they're not
using the
> scripts) it'd be better to remove them and standardize practices on the
> plain git tools.
>
> - Dave
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     Johannes
>>
>>
>>   > - Dave
>>   >
>>   >>
>>   >> Thanks,
>>   >>
>>   >>   Johannes
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> On 5/12/20 2:10 PM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev wrote:
>>   >>
>>   >> FWIW, if you do your development in git-branches, it is a
little
>> more than that.  IT ends up being:
>>   >>
>>   >> git push origin HEAD:master.
>>   >>
>>   >> Which is somewhat easy to mess up.  For example, I inverted
the
>> HEAD/master at one point and ended up creating a branch named “HEAD” at
>> one point.
>>   >>
>>   >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
>> <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Eric
Christopher via
>> llvm-dev
>>   >> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:59 AM
>>   >> To: Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com>
<yamauchi at google.com>
>>   >> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> <llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org>
>>   >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Deleting git-svn folder
(git-llvm,
>> git-svnrevert, git-svnup)
>>   >>
>>   >> Just push :)
>>   >>
>>   >> On Tue, May 12, 2020, 8:46 AM Hiroshi Yamauchi
>> <yamauchi at google.com<mailto:yamauchi at google.com>
<yamauchi at google.com>>
>> wrote:
>>   >> I was also using "git llvm push" to commit, sort
of out of habit.
>> What's a recommended, alternative way to push?
>>   >>
>>   >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:57 AM Johannes Doerfert via
llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>   >>
>>   >> I was actually using `git llvm` in my daily workflow.
>>   >>
>>   >> Could you explain why we want people to move away from that
script?
>>   >>
>>   >> In addition to the convenience, it prevented me from
accidentally
>> creating a new branch (which I did before with push once).
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> Cheers,
>>   >>
>>   >>   Johannes
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> On 5/11/20 11:43 AM, Zola Bridges via llvm-dev wrote:
>>   >>
>>   >> Deleted this morning. Thanks!
>>   >>
>>   >> Zola Bridges
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:35 PM Eric Christopher <echristo
at gmail.com>
>> <echristo at gmail.com><mailto:echristo at gmail.com>
<echristo at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> Giving at least one explicit:
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> Sounds good to me.
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:01 PM Zola Bridges via llvm-dev
<
>>   >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> Here is a link to the patch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79348
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> Zola Bridges
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:50 AM Zola Bridges <zbrid at
google.com>
>> <zbrid at google.com><mailto:zbrid at google.com> <zbrid
at google.com> wrote:
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> Hi everyone,
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> I would like to delete this folder of svn to git migration
tools.
>>   >>
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/master/llvm/utils/git-svn
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> My understanding of these tools is that they were useful for
when we
>>   >>
>>   >> were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the
migration is
>>   >>
>>   >> complete, they can be deleted as they are either unnecessary
or
>> there are
>>   >>
>>   >> other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push -->
git push).
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>    - Is there any reason these scripts should continue to
exist that
>>   >>
>>   >>    I'm not aware of?
>>   >>
>>   >>    - I'd like to delete these next Monday. Is that
timeline
>>   >>
>>   >>    unacceptable to anyone?
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> Thanks,
>>   >>
>>   >> Zola Bridges
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> _______________________________________________
>>   >>
>>   >> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>   >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> <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>
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>   >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>   >> _______________________________________________
>>   >> LLVM Developers mailing
>> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>   >>
>>   >>
>>   >> _______________________________________________
>>   >> LLVM Developers mailing
>> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://
>> 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
>>   >>
>>   >
>>
>>

I think the only reason is whether or not we want to encourage anything as
part of them or whether we want "llvm specific" commit
advice/instructions/etc where we want people to use these for sure.

That said, git isn't the most command line friendly of VCSs for me so if we
want to have something that makes things just a little easier I'm down, but
would like to see what we expect them to do documented (here?) and ...
documented (on the web page).

Thoughts?

-eric

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:25 PM Johannes Doerfert <
johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
> For some reason this thread seems to be gone in a wrong direction. I'm
> sorry for that.
>
>
> The discussion on the RFC asked for a reason to keep the script, I think
> we heard reasons to do so (due to branches).
>
> Now, I was unable to determine if the `git llvm` scripts was removed
> "just as part of the bunch" or if we expect a problem with the
script.
>
> If it is the former, are there reasons against adding it back?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>    Johannes
>
>
> On 5/12/20 5:13 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:56 PM Johannes Doerfert <
> > johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> TBH, all I initially asked for, still ask for, is a reason why
`git
> >> llvm` was being removed.
> >
> > Fair enough - and 24 hours later no one had replied to your inquiry -
I
> > don't think that's a huge deal, to be honest - I've
certainly had to
> > follow-up with higher email latencies than that pretty regularly. Eric
> had
> > replied to someone else's question pretty reasonably "what do
I use
> > instead?" "git push" (what most people have been using
since the
> transition)
> >> Your email was the only one that hinted on a
> >> reason.
> >>
> > I think the original proposal & response covered that - they
seem(ed)
> like
> > dead code ("My understanding of these tools is that they were
useful for
> > when we were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the
migration
> is
> > complete, they can be deleted as they are either unnecessary or there
are
> > other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push --> git
push).") -
> > some folks agreed, and time was given in case anyone had use cases
they
> > wanted to bring up & didn't.
> >
>
> >> (more below)
> >>
> >> On 5/12/20 4:00 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
> >>   > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:50 PM Johannes Doerfert via
llvm-dev <
> >>   > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>   >
> >>   >> @Zola, Eric,
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> I really feel the communication and reasoning here is
problematic.
> >>   >>
> >>   >> From my perspective, you removed stuff "we
don't need", ignoring
> >> whether
> >>   >> it is used, and then let people figure out how to deal
with the
> result.
> >>   >>
> >>   >> What I most dislike about the process most is how
questions and
> >> concerns
> >>   >> are then ignored or played down.
> >>   >>
> >>   > Honestly, I think Zola did more than I'd have expected
to be done
> for
> >> this
> >>   > - sending out the proposal (to llvm-dev, not just
llvm-commits,
> even) &
> >>   > waiting a week for feedback.
> >>
> >> Sure. That is why I did not mention the process that lead to the
> situation.
> >> I think my email/questions are well in line with post-commit
review
> >> standards but people seem to disagree.
> >>
> > I don't think your first email was unreasonable/not sure
anyone's saying
> it
> > was unreasonable?
> >
> >
> >>> Suggesting that LLVM developers (the, apparently rather small
(based on
> >>   > feedback from before/after this change) number of them)
migrate to
> the
> >>   > standard git functionality for contributing to git projects
seems
> >> like it's
> >>   > in line with discussions I recall seeing before and after
the git
> >> migration
> >>   > - that the git-llvm scripts were migration tools (there was
some
> >> discussion
> >>   > about whether they might be used for more post-migration,
to enforce
> >>   > certain constraints, etc - but those ideas were not
accepted/moved
> >> forward
> >>   > with).
> >>
> >> I recall no decision being made back in October 2019 and that we
will
> >> see how it goes. Till now I thought it went fine, or at least I
haven't
> >> understood what needed fixing.
> >>
> > I think the migration went fine, yes - but these scripts seem to me
like
> a
> > vestige of the hybrid situation & no longer needed/especially
beneficial.
> >
> >
> >>> I have some concern about adding these scripts back in as they
may
> >> lead to
> >>   > greater divergence in developer experience and/or become
less
> >> relevant over
> >>   > time and a weird thing for newcomers to stumble over,
perhaps. But I
> >> don't
> >>   > feel /that/ strongly, if other folks particularly prefer
using them,
> >> they
> >>   > seem mostly harmless.
> >>
> >> I don't think I understand your concerns. Could you elaborate
what
> >> divergence you can see in the future? FWIW, if the scripts are
broken
> >> and people stumble over them it means no one takes care of them
and
> >> removal is adequate.
> >>
> > I'd generally prefer to remove things sooner rather than later,
> personally.
> > I believe some of the original motivation was an offline discussion
about
> > adding more features (to trim unnecessary Phabricator fields, I
believe)
> to
> > them & a response was that they're not really used/encouraged
& so adding
> > features wouldn't be especially valuable - so the thought was to
go the
> > other way, rather than keeping them around, and building processes
that
> > might only work with the scripts & then being let down when those
> processes
> > aren't adhered to by most of the community (because they're
not using the
> > scripts) it'd be better to remove them and standardize practices
on the
> > plain git tools.
> >
> > - Dave
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>     Johannes
> >>
> >>
> >>   > - Dave
> >>   >
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Thanks,
> >>   >>
> >>   >>   Johannes
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> On 5/12/20 2:10 PM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev wrote:
> >>   >>
> >>   >> FWIW, if you do your development in git-branches, it is
a little
> >> more than that.  IT ends up being:
> >>   >>
> >>   >> git push origin HEAD:master.
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Which is somewhat easy to mess up.  For example, I
inverted the
> >> HEAD/master at one point and ended up creating a branch named
“HEAD” at
> >> one point.
> >>   >>
> >>   >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at
lists.llvm.org>
> >> <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Eric
Christopher via
> >> llvm-dev
> >>   >> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:59 AM
> >>   >> To: Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com>
<yamauchi at google.com>
> >>   >> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> >>   >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Deleting git-svn folder
(git-llvm,
> >> git-svnrevert, git-svnup)
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Just push :)
> >>   >>
> >>   >> On Tue, May 12, 2020, 8:46 AM Hiroshi Yamauchi
> >> <yamauchi at google.com<mailto:yamauchi at google.com>
<yamauchi at google.com>>
> >> wrote:
> >>   >> I was also using "git llvm push" to commit,
sort of out of habit.
> >> What's a recommended, alternative way to push?
> >>   >>
> >>   >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:57 AM Johannes Doerfert via
llvm-dev
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >>   >>
> >>   >> I was actually using `git llvm` in my daily workflow.
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Could you explain why we want people to move away from
that script?
> >>   >>
> >>   >> In addition to the convenience, it prevented me from
accidentally
> >> creating a new branch (which I did before with push once).
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Cheers,
> >>   >>
> >>   >>   Johannes
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> On 5/11/20 11:43 AM, Zola Bridges via llvm-dev wrote:
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Deleted this morning. Thanks!
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Zola Bridges
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:35 PM Eric Christopher <
> echristo at gmail.com>
> >> <echristo at gmail.com><mailto:echristo at gmail.com>
<echristo at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Giving at least one explicit:
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Sounds good to me.
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:01 PM Zola Bridges via
llvm-dev <
> >>   >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Here is a link to the patch:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79348
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Zola Bridges
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:50 AM Zola Bridges <zbrid
at google.com>
> >> <zbrid at google.com><mailto:zbrid at google.com>
<zbrid at google.com> wrote:
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Hi everyone,
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> I would like to delete this folder of svn to git
migration tools.
> >>   >>
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/master/llvm/utils/git-svn
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> My understanding of these tools is that they were
useful for when
> we
> >>   >>
> >>   >> were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the
migration is
> >>   >>
> >>   >> complete, they can be deleted as they are either
unnecessary or
> >> there are
> >>   >>
> >>   >> other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push
--> git push).
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>    - Is there any reason these scripts should continue
to exist
> that
> >>   >>
> >>   >>    I'm not aware of?
> >>   >>
> >>   >>    - I'd like to delete these next Monday. Is that
timeline
> >>   >>
> >>   >>    unacceptable to anyone?
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Thanks,
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Zola Bridges
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> _______________________________________________
> >>   >>
> >>   >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>   >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> >> <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>
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> >>   >>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >>   >> _______________________________________________
> >>   >> LLVM Developers mailing
> >> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> _______________________________________________
> >>   >> LLVM Developers mailing
> >> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://
> >> 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/20200512/f920acd0/attachment-0001.html>

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:25 PM Johannes Doerfert <
johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
> For some reason this thread seems to be gone in a wrong direction. I'm
> sorry for that.
>
All good (:

> The discussion on the RFC asked for a reason to keep the script, I think
> we heard reasons to do so (due to branches).
>
Yeah, it seems harmless enough to keep git-llvm if some folks find it
useful. I don't object.

> Now, I was unable to determine if the `git llvm` scripts was removed
> "just as part of the bunch" or if we expect a problem with the
script.
> If it is the former, are there reasons against adding it back?
>
I think it was intentionally removed, as I mentioned - there was a
discussion about adding features to it, and a general consensus that it
didn't have mainstream usage/adding features wouldn't get a lot of
traction
(chicken & egg problem, to be sure - don't get users without features,
can't justify features without users) - but, yes, if a few folks are still
finding value in the scripts I don't mind them sticking around, I think
they're pretty harmless.

Re, Eric's:

"I think the only reason is whether or not we want to encourage anything as
part of them or whether we want "llvm specific" commit
advice/instructions/etc where we want people to use these for sure.
That said, git isn't the most command line friendly of VCSs for me so if we
want to have something that makes things just a little easier I'm down, but
would like to see what we expect them to do documented (here?) and ...
documented (on the web page)."

I don't mind too much, really - they've been useful for some folks so
far,
I don't think adding them back in should necessarily involve a higher bar
than their existence/original introduction did previously (& like the
git-svn tools - some folks used them, some didn't, etc) and I'd probably
have somewhat more significant feelings about not wanting to encourage
their use further (for the same chicken-and-egg-y reasons) in formal "how
to work with LLVM" documentation, but if it's documented amongst other
tools rather than promoted as a "here's how to work with llvm" I
wouldn't
have any objection. (& if people want to encourage this as the canonical
way to do LLVM, I think that discussion's certainly something that could be
had - I'm just expressing my personal opinion about that direction)

- Dave


>
>
> Thanks,
>
>    Johannes
>
>
> On 5/12/20 5:13 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:56 PM Johannes Doerfert <
> > johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> TBH, all I initially asked for, still ask for, is a reason why
`git
> >> llvm` was being removed.
> >
> > Fair enough - and 24 hours later no one had replied to your inquiry -
I
> > don't think that's a huge deal, to be honest - I've
certainly had to
> > follow-up with higher email latencies than that pretty regularly. Eric
> had
> > replied to someone else's question pretty reasonably "what do
I use
> > instead?" "git push" (what most people have been using
since the
> transition)
> >> Your email was the only one that hinted on a
> >> reason.
> >>
> > I think the original proposal & response covered that - they
seem(ed)
> like
> > dead code ("My understanding of these tools is that they were
useful for
> > when we were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the
migration
> is
> > complete, they can be deleted as they are either unnecessary or there
are
> > other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push --> git
push).") -
> > some folks agreed, and time was given in case anyone had use cases
they
> > wanted to bring up & didn't.
> >
>
> >> (more below)
> >>
> >> On 5/12/20 4:00 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
> >>   > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:50 PM Johannes Doerfert via
llvm-dev <
> >>   > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>   >
> >>   >> @Zola, Eric,
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> I really feel the communication and reasoning here is
problematic.
> >>   >>
> >>   >> From my perspective, you removed stuff "we
don't need", ignoring
> >> whether
> >>   >> it is used, and then let people figure out how to deal
with the
> result.
> >>   >>
> >>   >> What I most dislike about the process most is how
questions and
> >> concerns
> >>   >> are then ignored or played down.
> >>   >>
> >>   > Honestly, I think Zola did more than I'd have expected
to be done
> for
> >> this
> >>   > - sending out the proposal (to llvm-dev, not just
llvm-commits,
> even) &
> >>   > waiting a week for feedback.
> >>
> >> Sure. That is why I did not mention the process that lead to the
> situation.
> >> I think my email/questions are well in line with post-commit
review
> >> standards but people seem to disagree.
> >>
> > I don't think your first email was unreasonable/not sure
anyone's saying
> it
> > was unreasonable?
> >
> >
> >>> Suggesting that LLVM developers (the, apparently rather small
(based on
> >>   > feedback from before/after this change) number of them)
migrate to
> the
> >>   > standard git functionality for contributing to git projects
seems
> >> like it's
> >>   > in line with discussions I recall seeing before and after
the git
> >> migration
> >>   > - that the git-llvm scripts were migration tools (there was
some
> >> discussion
> >>   > about whether they might be used for more post-migration,
to enforce
> >>   > certain constraints, etc - but those ideas were not
accepted/moved
> >> forward
> >>   > with).
> >>
> >> I recall no decision being made back in October 2019 and that we
will
> >> see how it goes. Till now I thought it went fine, or at least I
haven't
> >> understood what needed fixing.
> >>
> > I think the migration went fine, yes - but these scripts seem to me
like
> a
> > vestige of the hybrid situation & no longer needed/especially
beneficial.
> >
> >
> >>> I have some concern about adding these scripts back in as they
may
> >> lead to
> >>   > greater divergence in developer experience and/or become
less
> >> relevant over
> >>   > time and a weird thing for newcomers to stumble over,
perhaps. But I
> >> don't
> >>   > feel /that/ strongly, if other folks particularly prefer
using them,
> >> they
> >>   > seem mostly harmless.
> >>
> >> I don't think I understand your concerns. Could you elaborate
what
> >> divergence you can see in the future? FWIW, if the scripts are
broken
> >> and people stumble over them it means no one takes care of them
and
> >> removal is adequate.
> >>
> > I'd generally prefer to remove things sooner rather than later,
> personally.
> > I believe some of the original motivation was an offline discussion
about
> > adding more features (to trim unnecessary Phabricator fields, I
believe)
> to
> > them & a response was that they're not really used/encouraged
& so adding
> > features wouldn't be especially valuable - so the thought was to
go the
> > other way, rather than keeping them around, and building processes
that
> > might only work with the scripts & then being let down when those
> processes
> > aren't adhered to by most of the community (because they're
not using the
> > scripts) it'd be better to remove them and standardize practices
on the
> > plain git tools.
> >
> > - Dave
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>     Johannes
> >>
> >>
> >>   > - Dave
> >>   >
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Thanks,
> >>   >>
> >>   >>   Johannes
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> On 5/12/20 2:10 PM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev wrote:
> >>   >>
> >>   >> FWIW, if you do your development in git-branches, it is
a little
> >> more than that.  IT ends up being:
> >>   >>
> >>   >> git push origin HEAD:master.
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Which is somewhat easy to mess up.  For example, I
inverted the
> >> HEAD/master at one point and ended up creating a branch named
“HEAD” at
> >> one point.
> >>   >>
> >>   >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at
lists.llvm.org>
> >> <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Eric
Christopher via
> >> llvm-dev
> >>   >> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:59 AM
> >>   >> To: Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com>
<yamauchi at google.com>
> >>   >> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> >>   >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Deleting git-svn folder
(git-llvm,
> >> git-svnrevert, git-svnup)
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Just push :)
> >>   >>
> >>   >> On Tue, May 12, 2020, 8:46 AM Hiroshi Yamauchi
> >> <yamauchi at google.com<mailto:yamauchi at google.com>
<yamauchi at google.com>>
> >> wrote:
> >>   >> I was also using "git llvm push" to commit,
sort of out of habit.
> >> What's a recommended, alternative way to push?
> >>   >>
> >>   >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:57 AM Johannes Doerfert via
llvm-dev
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >>   >>
> >>   >> I was actually using `git llvm` in my daily workflow.
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Could you explain why we want people to move away from
that script?
> >>   >>
> >>   >> In addition to the convenience, it prevented me from
accidentally
> >> creating a new branch (which I did before with push once).
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Cheers,
> >>   >>
> >>   >>   Johannes
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> On 5/11/20 11:43 AM, Zola Bridges via llvm-dev wrote:
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Deleted this morning. Thanks!
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Zola Bridges
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:35 PM Eric Christopher <
> echristo at gmail.com>
> >> <echristo at gmail.com><mailto:echristo at gmail.com>
<echristo at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Giving at least one explicit:
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Sounds good to me.
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:01 PM Zola Bridges via
llvm-dev <
> >>   >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Here is a link to the patch:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79348
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Zola Bridges
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:50 AM Zola Bridges <zbrid
at google.com>
> >> <zbrid at google.com><mailto:zbrid at google.com>
<zbrid at google.com> wrote:
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Hi everyone,
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> I would like to delete this folder of svn to git
migration tools.
> >>   >>
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/master/llvm/utils/git-svn
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> My understanding of these tools is that they were
useful for when
> we
> >>   >>
> >>   >> were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the
migration is
> >>   >>
> >>   >> complete, they can be deleted as they are either
unnecessary or
> >> there are
> >>   >>
> >>   >> other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push
--> git push).
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>    - Is there any reason these scripts should continue
to exist
> that
> >>   >>
> >>   >>    I'm not aware of?
> >>   >>
> >>   >>    - I'd like to delete these next Monday. Is that
timeline
> >>   >>
> >>   >>    unacceptable to anyone?
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Thanks,
> >>   >>
> >>   >> Zola Bridges
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> _______________________________________________
> >>   >>
> >>   >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>   >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> >> <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>
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> >>   >>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >>   >> _______________________________________________
> >>   >> LLVM Developers mailing
> >> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >>   >>
> >>   >>
> >>   >> _______________________________________________
> >>   >> LLVM Developers mailing
> >> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://
> >> 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/20200512/b6753c42/attachment.html>

On 05/12/2020 03:23 PM, Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev
wrote:
> For some reason this thread seems to be gone in a wrong direction. I'm
sorry for that.
> 
> 
> The discussion on the RFC asked for a reason to keep the script, I think we
heard reasons to do so (due to branches).
> 
> Now, I was unable to determine if the `git llvm` scripts was removed
"just as part of the bunch" or if we expect a problem with the script.
> 
> If it is the former, are there reasons against adding it back?
> 
The reason I am in favor of removing this script is that it avoids the
problem where people report problems with their local git configuration
as bugs in the script.

-Tom
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>   Johannes
> 
> 
> On 5/12/20 5:13 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:56 PM Johannes Doerfert <
>> johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> TBH, all I initially asked for, still ask for, is a reason why `git
>>> llvm` was being removed.
>>
>> Fair enough - and 24 hours later no one had replied to your inquiry - I
>> don't think that's a huge deal, to be honest - I've
certainly had to
>> follow-up with higher email latencies than that pretty regularly. Eric
had
>> replied to someone else's question pretty reasonably "what do
I use
>> instead?" "git push" (what most people have been using
since the transition)
>>> Your email was the only one that hinted on a
>>> reason.
>>>
>> I think the original proposal & response covered that - they
seem(ed) like
>> dead code ("My understanding of these tools is that they were
useful for
>> when we were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the
migration is
>> complete, they can be deleted as they are either unnecessary or there
are
>> other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push --> git
push).") -
>> some folks agreed, and time was given in case anyone had use cases they
>> wanted to bring up & didn't.
>>
> 
>>> (more below)
>>>
>>> On 5/12/20 4:00 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>>>   > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:50 PM Johannes Doerfert via
llvm-dev <
>>>   > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>   >
>>>   >> @Zola, Eric,
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> I really feel the communication and reasoning here is
problematic.
>>>   >>
>>>   >> From my perspective, you removed stuff "we
don't need", ignoring
>>> whether
>>>   >> it is used, and then let people figure out how to deal
with the result.
>>>   >>
>>>   >> What I most dislike about the process most is how
questions and
>>> concerns
>>>   >> are then ignored or played down.
>>>   >>
>>>   > Honestly, I think Zola did more than I'd have expected
to be done for
>>> this
>>>   > - sending out the proposal (to llvm-dev, not just
llvm-commits, even) &
>>>   > waiting a week for feedback.
>>>
>>> Sure. That is why I did not mention the process that lead to the
situation.
>>> I think my email/questions are well in line with post-commit review
>>> standards but people seem to disagree.
>>>
>> I don't think your first email was unreasonable/not sure
anyone's saying it
>> was unreasonable?
>>
>>
>>>> Suggesting that LLVM developers (the, apparently rather small
(based on
>>>   > feedback from before/after this change) number of them)
migrate to the
>>>   > standard git functionality for contributing to git projects
seems
>>> like it's
>>>   > in line with discussions I recall seeing before and after
the git
>>> migration
>>>   > - that the git-llvm scripts were migration tools (there was
some
>>> discussion
>>>   > about whether they might be used for more post-migration, to
enforce
>>>   > certain constraints, etc - but those ideas were not
accepted/moved
>>> forward
>>>   > with).
>>>
>>> I recall no decision being made back in October 2019 and that we
will
>>> see how it goes. Till now I thought it went fine, or at least I
haven't
>>> understood what needed fixing.
>>>
>> I think the migration went fine, yes - but these scripts seem to me
like a
>> vestige of the hybrid situation & no longer needed/especially
beneficial.
>>
>>
>>>> I have some concern about adding these scripts back in as they
may
>>> lead to
>>>   > greater divergence in developer experience and/or become
less
>>> relevant over
>>>   > time and a weird thing for newcomers to stumble over,
perhaps. But I
>>> don't
>>>   > feel /that/ strongly, if other folks particularly prefer
using them,
>>> they
>>>   > seem mostly harmless.
>>>
>>> I don't think I understand your concerns. Could you elaborate
what
>>> divergence you can see in the future? FWIW, if the scripts are
broken
>>> and people stumble over them it means no one takes care of them and
>>> removal is adequate.
>>>
>> I'd generally prefer to remove things sooner rather than later,
personally.
>> I believe some of the original motivation was an offline discussion
about
>> adding more features (to trim unnecessary Phabricator fields, I
believe) to
>> them & a response was that they're not really used/encouraged
& so adding
>> features wouldn't be especially valuable - so the thought was to go
the
>> other way, rather than keeping them around, and building processes that
>> might only work with the scripts & then being let down when those
processes
>> aren't adhered to by most of the community (because they're not
using the
>> scripts) it'd be better to remove them and standardize practices on
the
>> plain git tools.
>>
>> - Dave
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>     Johannes
>>>
>>>
>>>   > - Dave
>>>   >
>>>   >>
>>>   >> Thanks,
>>>   >>
>>>   >>   Johannes
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> On 5/12/20 2:10 PM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>   >>
>>>   >> FWIW, if you do your development in git-branches, it is
a little
>>> more than that.  IT ends up being:
>>>   >>
>>>   >> git push origin HEAD:master.
>>>   >>
>>>   >> Which is somewhat easy to mess up.  For example, I
inverted the
>>> HEAD/master at one point and ended up creating a branch named
“HEAD” at
>>> one point.
>>>   >>
>>>   >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at
lists.llvm.org>
>>> <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Eric
Christopher via
>>> llvm-dev
>>>   >> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:59 AM
>>>   >> To: Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com>
<yamauchi at google.com>
>>>   >> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>>   >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Deleting git-svn folder
(git-llvm,
>>> git-svnrevert, git-svnup)
>>>   >>
>>>   >> Just push :)
>>>   >>
>>>   >> On Tue, May 12, 2020, 8:46 AM Hiroshi Yamauchi
>>> <yamauchi at google.com<mailto:yamauchi at google.com>
<yamauchi at google.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>   >> I was also using "git llvm push" to commit,
sort of out of habit.
>>> What's a recommended, alternative way to push?
>>>   >>
>>>   >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:57 AM Johannes Doerfert via
llvm-dev
>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>   >>
>>>   >> I was actually using `git llvm` in my daily workflow.
>>>   >>
>>>   >> Could you explain why we want people to move away from
that script?
>>>   >>
>>>   >> In addition to the convenience, it prevented me from
accidentally
>>> creating a new branch (which I did before with push once).
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> Cheers,
>>>   >>
>>>   >>   Johannes
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> On 5/11/20 11:43 AM, Zola Bridges via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>   >>
>>>   >> Deleted this morning. Thanks!
>>>   >>
>>>   >> Zola Bridges
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:35 PM Eric Christopher
<echristo at gmail.com>
>>> <echristo at gmail.com><mailto:echristo at gmail.com>
<echristo at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> Giving at least one explicit:
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> Sounds good to me.
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:01 PM Zola Bridges via
llvm-dev <
>>>   >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> Here is a link to the patch:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79348
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> Zola Bridges
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:50 AM Zola Bridges <zbrid
at google.com>
>>> <zbrid at google.com><mailto:zbrid at google.com>
<zbrid at google.com> wrote:
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> Hi everyone,
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> I would like to delete this folder of svn to git
migration tools.
>>>   >>
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/master/llvm/utils/git-svn
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> My understanding of these tools is that they were useful
for when we
>>>   >>
>>>   >> were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the
migration is
>>>   >>
>>>   >> complete, they can be deleted as they are either
unnecessary or
>>> there are
>>>   >>
>>>   >> other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push
--> git push).
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>    - Is there any reason these scripts should continue
to exist that
>>>   >>
>>>   >>    I'm not aware of?
>>>   >>
>>>   >>    - I'd like to delete these next Monday. Is that
timeline
>>>   >>
>>>   >>    unacceptable to anyone?
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> Thanks,
>>>   >>
>>>   >> Zola Bridges
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> _______________________________________________
>>>   >>
>>>   >> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>   >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>> <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>
>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>>   >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>   >> _______________________________________________
>>>   >> LLVM Developers mailing
>>> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> _______________________________________________
>>>   >> LLVM Developers mailing
>>> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://
>>> 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

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:25 PM Johannes Doerfert <
> johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For some reason this thread seems to be gone in a wrong direction.
I'm
>> sorry for that.
>>
>
> All good (:
>
>
>> The discussion on the RFC asked for a reason to keep the script, I
think
>> we heard reasons to do so (due to branches).
>>
>
> Yeah, it seems harmless enough to keep git-llvm if some folks find it
> useful. I don't object.
>
>
>> Now, I was unable to determine if the `git llvm` scripts was removed
>> "just as part of the bunch" or if we expect a problem with
the script.
>
>
>> If it is the former, are there reasons against adding it back?
>>
>
> I think it was intentionally removed, as I mentioned - there was a
> discussion about adding features to it, and a general consensus that it
> didn't have mainstream usage/adding features wouldn't get a lot of
traction
> (chicken & egg problem, to be sure - don't get users without
features,
> can't justify features without users) - but, yes, if a few folks are
still
> finding value in the scripts I don't mind them sticking around, I think
> they're pretty harmless.
>
> Re, Eric's:
>
> "I think the only reason is whether or not we want to encourage
anything
> as part of them or whether we want "llvm specific" commit
> advice/instructions/etc where we want people to use these for sure.
> That said, git isn't the most command line friendly of VCSs for me so
if
> we want to have something that makes things just a little easier I'm
down,
> but would like to see what we expect them to do documented (here?) and ...
> documented (on the web page)."
>
> I don't mind too much, really - they've been useful for some folks
so far,
> I don't think adding them back in should necessarily involve a higher
bar
> than their existence/original introduction did previously (& like the
> git-svn tools - some folks used them, some didn't, etc) and I'd
probably
> have somewhat more significant feelings about not wanting to encourage
> their use further (for the same chicken-and-egg-y reasons) in formal
"how
> to work with LLVM" documentation, but if it's documented amongst
other
> tools rather than promoted as a "here's how to work with
llvm" I wouldn't
> have any objection. (& if people want to encourage this as the
canonical
> way to do LLVM, I think that discussion's certainly something that
could be
> had - I'm just expressing my personal opinion about that direction)
>
>
Sounds good to me. As I was telling Johannes: "My input in VCSs discussions
should be taken with a very large grain of salt". I just want it to be
straightforward and reduce possible areas of issues :)

-eric

> - Dave
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>    Johannes
>>
>>
>> On 5/12/20 5:13 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:56 PM Johannes Doerfert <
>> > johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> TBH, all I initially asked for, still ask for, is a reason why
`git
>> >> llvm` was being removed.
>> >
>> > Fair enough - and 24 hours later no one had replied to your
inquiry - I
>> > don't think that's a huge deal, to be honest - I've
certainly had to
>> > follow-up with higher email latencies than that pretty regularly.
Eric
>> had
>> > replied to someone else's question pretty reasonably
"what do I use
>> > instead?" "git push" (what most people have been
using since the
>> transition)
>> >> Your email was the only one that hinted on a
>> >> reason.
>> >>
>> > I think the original proposal & response covered that - they
seem(ed)
>> like
>> > dead code ("My understanding of these tools is that they were
useful for
>> > when we were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the
>> migration is
>> > complete, they can be deleted as they are either unnecessary or
there
>> are
>> > other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push --> git
push).") -
>> > some folks agreed, and time was given in case anyone had use cases
they
>> > wanted to bring up & didn't.
>> >
>>
>> >> (more below)
>> >>
>> >> On 5/12/20 4:00 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>> >>   > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:50 PM Johannes Doerfert via
llvm-dev <
>> >>   > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>   >
>> >>   >> @Zola, Eric,
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> I really feel the communication and reasoning here
is problematic.
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> From my perspective, you removed stuff "we
don't need", ignoring
>> >> whether
>> >>   >> it is used, and then let people figure out how to
deal with the
>> result.
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> What I most dislike about the process most is how
questions and
>> >> concerns
>> >>   >> are then ignored or played down.
>> >>   >>
>> >>   > Honestly, I think Zola did more than I'd have
expected to be done
>> for
>> >> this
>> >>   > - sending out the proposal (to llvm-dev, not just
llvm-commits,
>> even) &
>> >>   > waiting a week for feedback.
>> >>
>> >> Sure. That is why I did not mention the process that lead to
the
>> situation.
>> >> I think my email/questions are well in line with post-commit
review
>> >> standards but people seem to disagree.
>> >>
>> > I don't think your first email was unreasonable/not sure
anyone's
>> saying it
>> > was unreasonable?
>> >
>> >
>> >>> Suggesting that LLVM developers (the, apparently rather
small (based
>> on
>> >>   > feedback from before/after this change) number of them)
migrate to
>> the
>> >>   > standard git functionality for contributing to git
projects seems
>> >> like it's
>> >>   > in line with discussions I recall seeing before and
after the git
>> >> migration
>> >>   > - that the git-llvm scripts were migration tools (there
was some
>> >> discussion
>> >>   > about whether they might be used for more
post-migration, to
>> enforce
>> >>   > certain constraints, etc - but those ideas were not
accepted/moved
>> >> forward
>> >>   > with).
>> >>
>> >> I recall no decision being made back in October 2019 and that
we will
>> >> see how it goes. Till now I thought it went fine, or at least
I haven't
>> >> understood what needed fixing.
>> >>
>> > I think the migration went fine, yes - but these scripts seem to
me
>> like a
>> > vestige of the hybrid situation & no longer needed/especially
>> beneficial.
>> >
>> >
>> >>> I have some concern about adding these scripts back in as
they may
>> >> lead to
>> >>   > greater divergence in developer experience and/or
become less
>> >> relevant over
>> >>   > time and a weird thing for newcomers to stumble over,
perhaps. But
>> I
>> >> don't
>> >>   > feel /that/ strongly, if other folks particularly
prefer using
>> them,
>> >> they
>> >>   > seem mostly harmless.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think I understand your concerns. Could you
elaborate what
>> >> divergence you can see in the future? FWIW, if the scripts are
broken
>> >> and people stumble over them it means no one takes care of
them and
>> >> removal is adequate.
>> >>
>> > I'd generally prefer to remove things sooner rather than
later,
>> personally.
>> > I believe some of the original motivation was an offline
discussion
>> about
>> > adding more features (to trim unnecessary Phabricator fields, I
>> believe) to
>> > them & a response was that they're not really
used/encouraged & so
>> adding
>> > features wouldn't be especially valuable - so the thought was
to go the
>> > other way, rather than keeping them around, and building processes
that
>> > might only work with the scripts & then being let down when
those
>> processes
>> > aren't adhered to by most of the community (because
they're not using
>> the
>> > scripts) it'd be better to remove them and standardize
practices on the
>> > plain git tools.
>> >
>> > - Dave
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>     Johannes
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   > - Dave
>> >>   >
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Thanks,
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>   Johannes
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> On 5/12/20 2:10 PM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev
wrote:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> FWIW, if you do your development in git-branches,
it is a little
>> >> more than that.  IT ends up being:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> git push origin HEAD:master.
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Which is somewhat easy to mess up.  For example, I
inverted the
>> >> HEAD/master at one point and ended up creating a branch named
“HEAD” at
>> >> one point.
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at
lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Eric
Christopher via
>> >> llvm-dev
>> >>   >> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:59 AM
>> >>   >> To: Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com>
<yamauchi at google.com>
>> >>   >> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >>   >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Deleting git-svn
folder (git-llvm,
>> >> git-svnrevert, git-svnup)
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Just push :)
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> On Tue, May 12, 2020, 8:46 AM Hiroshi Yamauchi
>> >> <yamauchi at google.com<mailto:yamauchi at
google.com> <yamauchi at google.com
>> >>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>   >> I was also using "git llvm push" to
commit, sort of out of habit.
>> >> What's a recommended, alternative way to push?
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:57 AM Johannes Doerfert
via llvm-dev
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> I was actually using `git llvm` in my daily
workflow.
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Could you explain why we want people to move away
from that
>> script?
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> In addition to the convenience, it prevented me
from accidentally
>> >> creating a new branch (which I did before with push once).
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Cheers,
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>   Johannes
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> On 5/11/20 11:43 AM, Zola Bridges via llvm-dev
wrote:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Deleted this morning. Thanks!
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Zola Bridges
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:35 PM Eric Christopher
<
>> echristo at gmail.com>
>> >> <echristo at gmail.com><mailto:echristo at
gmail.com> <echristo at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Giving at least one explicit:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Sounds good to me.
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:01 PM Zola Bridges via
llvm-dev <
>> >>   >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Here is a link to the patch:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79348
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Zola Bridges
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:50 AM Zola Bridges
<zbrid at google.com>
>> >> <zbrid at google.com><mailto:zbrid at google.com>
<zbrid at google.com> wrote:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Hi everyone,
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> I would like to delete this folder of svn to git
migration tools.
>> >>   >>
>> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/master/llvm/utils/git-svn
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> My understanding of these tools is that they were
useful for when
>> we
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since
the migration
>> is
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> complete, they can be deleted as they are either
unnecessary or
>> >> there are
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> other more common workflow options (ie git llvm
push --> git
>> push).
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>    - Is there any reason these scripts should
continue to exist
>> that
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>    I'm not aware of?
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>    - I'd like to delete these next Monday. Is
that timeline
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>    unacceptable to anyone?
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Thanks,
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Zola Bridges
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> _______________________________________________
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >>   >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <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>
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >>   >>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >>   >> _______________________________________________
>> >>   >> LLVM Developers mailing
>> >> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> _______________________________________________
>> >>   >> LLVM Developers mailing
>> >> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://
>> >> 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/20200512/3bfdf32b/attachment.html>

On 5/12/20 5:40 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On 05/12/2020 03:23 PM, Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev wrote:
>> For some reason this thread seems to be gone in a wrong direction.
I'm sorry for that.
>>
>>
>> The discussion on the RFC asked for a reason to keep the script, I
think we heard reasons to do so (due to branches).
>>
>> Now, I was unable to determine if the `git llvm` scripts was removed
"just as part of the bunch" or if we expect a problem with the script.
>>
>> If it is the former, are there reasons against adding it back?
>>
> The reason I am in favor of removing this script is that it avoids the
> problem where people report problems with their local git configuration
> as bugs in the script.
I see. I did not expect that was happening.


I was hoping it would allow us to solve common problems, .e.g., what we 
learn form the threads asking how to deal with git directly.

I also thought, the script would give us also a nice way forward once we 
change our workflow again (without requiring everyone to do it manually).


Cheers,

   Johannes

> -Tom
>> Thanks,
>>
>>    Johannes
>>
>>
>> On 5/12/20 5:13 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:56 PM Johannes Doerfert <
>>> johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> TBH, all I initially asked for, still ask for, is a reason why
`git
>>>> llvm` was being removed.
>>> Fair enough - and 24 hours later no one had replied to your inquiry
- I
>>> don't think that's a huge deal, to be honest - I've
certainly had to
>>> follow-up with higher email latencies than that pretty regularly.
Eric had
>>> replied to someone else's question pretty reasonably "what
do I use
>>> instead?" "git push" (what most people have been
using since the transition)
>>>> Your email was the only one that hinted on a
>>>> reason.
>>>>
>>> I think the original proposal & response covered that - they
seem(ed) like
>>> dead code ("My understanding of these tools is that they were
useful for
>>> when we were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the
migration is
>>> complete, they can be deleted as they are either unnecessary or
there are
>>> other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push --> git
push).") -
>>> some folks agreed, and time was given in case anyone had use cases
they
>>> wanted to bring up & didn't.
>>>
>>>> (more below)
>>>>
>>>> On 5/12/20 4:00 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>>>>    > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:50 PM Johannes Doerfert via
llvm-dev <
>>>>    > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>    >
>>>>    >> @Zola, Eric,
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> I really feel the communication and reasoning here
is problematic.
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> From my perspective, you removed stuff "we
don't need", ignoring
>>>> whether
>>>>    >> it is used, and then let people figure out how to
deal with the result.
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> What I most dislike about the process most is how
questions and
>>>> concerns
>>>>    >> are then ignored or played down.
>>>>    >>
>>>>    > Honestly, I think Zola did more than I'd have
expected to be done for
>>>> this
>>>>    > - sending out the proposal (to llvm-dev, not just
llvm-commits, even) &
>>>>    > waiting a week for feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. That is why I did not mention the process that lead to
the situation.
>>>> I think my email/questions are well in line with post-commit
review
>>>> standards but people seem to disagree.
>>>>
>>> I don't think your first email was unreasonable/not sure
anyone's saying it
>>> was unreasonable?
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Suggesting that LLVM developers (the, apparently rather
small (based on
>>>>    > feedback from before/after this change) number of them)
migrate to the
>>>>    > standard git functionality for contributing to git
projects seems
>>>> like it's
>>>>    > in line with discussions I recall seeing before and
after the git
>>>> migration
>>>>    > - that the git-llvm scripts were migration tools (there
was some
>>>> discussion
>>>>    > about whether they might be used for more
post-migration, to enforce
>>>>    > certain constraints, etc - but those ideas were not
accepted/moved
>>>> forward
>>>>    > with).
>>>>
>>>> I recall no decision being made back in October 2019 and that
we will
>>>> see how it goes. Till now I thought it went fine, or at least I
haven't
>>>> understood what needed fixing.
>>>>
>>> I think the migration went fine, yes - but these scripts seem to me
like a
>>> vestige of the hybrid situation & no longer needed/especially
beneficial.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I have some concern about adding these scripts back in as
they may
>>>> lead to
>>>>    > greater divergence in developer experience and/or
become less
>>>> relevant over
>>>>    > time and a weird thing for newcomers to stumble over,
perhaps. But I
>>>> don't
>>>>    > feel /that/ strongly, if other folks particularly
prefer using them,
>>>> they
>>>>    > seem mostly harmless.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think I understand your concerns. Could you
elaborate what
>>>> divergence you can see in the future? FWIW, if the scripts are
broken
>>>> and people stumble over them it means no one takes care of them
and
>>>> removal is adequate.
>>>>
>>> I'd generally prefer to remove things sooner rather than later,
personally.
>>> I believe some of the original motivation was an offline discussion
about
>>> adding more features (to trim unnecessary Phabricator fields, I
believe) to
>>> them & a response was that they're not really
used/encouraged & so adding
>>> features wouldn't be especially valuable - so the thought was
to go the
>>> other way, rather than keeping them around, and building processes
that
>>> might only work with the scripts & then being let down when
those processes
>>> aren't adhered to by most of the community (because they're
not using the
>>> scripts) it'd be better to remove them and standardize
practices on the
>>> plain git tools.
>>>
>>> - Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>      Johannes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    > - Dave
>>>>    >
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> Thanks,
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>   Johannes
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> On 5/12/20 2:10 PM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev
wrote:
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> FWIW, if you do your development in git-branches,
it is a little
>>>> more than that.  IT ends up being:
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> git push origin HEAD:master.
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> Which is somewhat easy to mess up.  For example, I
inverted the
>>>> HEAD/master at one point and ended up creating a branch named
“HEAD” at
>>>> one point.
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at
lists.llvm.org>
>>>> <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Eric
Christopher via
>>>> llvm-dev
>>>>    >> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:59 AM
>>>>    >> To: Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com>
<yamauchi at google.com>
>>>>    >> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>>>    >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Deleting git-svn
folder (git-llvm,
>>>> git-svnrevert, git-svnup)
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> Just push :)
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> On Tue, May 12, 2020, 8:46 AM Hiroshi Yamauchi
>>>> <yamauchi at google.com<mailto:yamauchi at google.com>
<yamauchi at google.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>    >> I was also using "git llvm push" to
commit, sort of out of habit.
>>>> What's a recommended, alternative way to push?
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:57 AM Johannes Doerfert
via llvm-dev
>>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> I was actually using `git llvm` in my daily
workflow.
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> Could you explain why we want people to move away
from that script?
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> In addition to the convenience, it prevented me
from accidentally
>>>> creating a new branch (which I did before with push once).
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> Cheers,
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>   Johannes
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> On 5/11/20 11:43 AM, Zola Bridges via llvm-dev
wrote:
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> Deleted this morning. Thanks!
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> Zola Bridges
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:35 PM Eric Christopher
<echristo at gmail.com>
>>>> <echristo at gmail.com><mailto:echristo at
gmail.com> <echristo at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> Giving at least one explicit:
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> Sounds good to me.
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:01 PM Zola Bridges via
llvm-dev <
>>>>    >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> Here is a link to the patch:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79348
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> Zola Bridges
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:50 AM Zola Bridges
<zbrid at google.com>
>>>> <zbrid at google.com><mailto:zbrid at google.com>
<zbrid at google.com> wrote:
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> Hi everyone,
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> I would like to delete this folder of svn to git
migration tools.
>>>>    >>
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/master/llvm/utils/git-svn
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> My understanding of these tools is that they were
useful for when we
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since
the migration is
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> complete, they can be deleted as they are either
unnecessary or
>>>> there are
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> other more common workflow options (ie git llvm
push --> git push).
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>    - Is there any reason these scripts should
continue to exist that
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>    I'm not aware of?
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>    - I'd like to delete these next Monday. Is
that timeline
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>    unacceptable to anyone?
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> Thanks,
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> Zola Bridges
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> _______________________________________________
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>    >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>>> <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>
>>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>>>    >>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>    >> _______________________________________________
>>>>    >> LLVM Developers mailing
>>>> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >>
>>>>    >> _______________________________________________
>>>>    >> LLVM Developers mailing
>>>> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://
>>>> 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

FWIW, I'm not against people using the script if there's a good reason
for
it, but I'd be somewhat opposed to mandating it, as that could easily get
confusing for people like me who work in both downstream and upstream repos
who wouldn't want to use the scripts downstream - it would be fairly
straightforward to forget to use it/use it incorrectly, and depending on
what the script actually does, this could cause various unwanted side
effects, which may not even be noticed immediately.

On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 23:30, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I think the only reason is whether or not we want to encourage anything as
> part of them or whether we want "llvm specific" commit
> advice/instructions/etc where we want people to use these for sure.
>
> That said, git isn't the most command line friendly of VCSs for me so
if
> we want to have something that makes things just a little easier I'm
down,
> but would like to see what we expect them to do documented (here?) and ...
> documented (on the web page).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -eric
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:25 PM Johannes Doerfert <
> johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For some reason this thread seems to be gone in a wrong direction.
I'm
>> sorry for that.
>>
>>
>> The discussion on the RFC asked for a reason to keep the script, I
think
>> we heard reasons to do so (due to branches).
>>
>> Now, I was unable to determine if the `git llvm` scripts was removed
>> "just as part of the bunch" or if we expect a problem with
the script.
>>
>> If it is the former, are there reasons against adding it back?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>    Johannes
>>
>>
>> On 5/12/20 5:13 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:56 PM Johannes Doerfert <
>> > johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> TBH, all I initially asked for, still ask for, is a reason why
`git
>> >> llvm` was being removed.
>> >
>> > Fair enough - and 24 hours later no one had replied to your
inquiry - I
>> > don't think that's a huge deal, to be honest - I've
certainly had to
>> > follow-up with higher email latencies than that pretty regularly.
Eric
>> had
>> > replied to someone else's question pretty reasonably
"what do I use
>> > instead?" "git push" (what most people have been
using since the
>> transition)
>> >> Your email was the only one that hinted on a
>> >> reason.
>> >>
>> > I think the original proposal & response covered that - they
seem(ed)
>> like
>> > dead code ("My understanding of these tools is that they were
useful for
>> > when we were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the
>> migration is
>> > complete, they can be deleted as they are either unnecessary or
there
>> are
>> > other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push --> git
push).") -
>> > some folks agreed, and time was given in case anyone had use cases
they
>> > wanted to bring up & didn't.
>> >
>>
>> >> (more below)
>> >>
>> >> On 5/12/20 4:00 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>> >>   > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:50 PM Johannes Doerfert via
llvm-dev <
>> >>   > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>   >
>> >>   >> @Zola, Eric,
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> I really feel the communication and reasoning here
is problematic.
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> From my perspective, you removed stuff "we
don't need", ignoring
>> >> whether
>> >>   >> it is used, and then let people figure out how to
deal with the
>> result.
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> What I most dislike about the process most is how
questions and
>> >> concerns
>> >>   >> are then ignored or played down.
>> >>   >>
>> >>   > Honestly, I think Zola did more than I'd have
expected to be done
>> for
>> >> this
>> >>   > - sending out the proposal (to llvm-dev, not just
llvm-commits,
>> even) &
>> >>   > waiting a week for feedback.
>> >>
>> >> Sure. That is why I did not mention the process that lead to
the
>> situation.
>> >> I think my email/questions are well in line with post-commit
review
>> >> standards but people seem to disagree.
>> >>
>> > I don't think your first email was unreasonable/not sure
anyone's
>> saying it
>> > was unreasonable?
>> >
>> >
>> >>> Suggesting that LLVM developers (the, apparently rather
small (based
>> on
>> >>   > feedback from before/after this change) number of them)
migrate to
>> the
>> >>   > standard git functionality for contributing to git
projects seems
>> >> like it's
>> >>   > in line with discussions I recall seeing before and
after the git
>> >> migration
>> >>   > - that the git-llvm scripts were migration tools (there
was some
>> >> discussion
>> >>   > about whether they might be used for more
post-migration, to
>> enforce
>> >>   > certain constraints, etc - but those ideas were not
accepted/moved
>> >> forward
>> >>   > with).
>> >>
>> >> I recall no decision being made back in October 2019 and that
we will
>> >> see how it goes. Till now I thought it went fine, or at least
I haven't
>> >> understood what needed fixing.
>> >>
>> > I think the migration went fine, yes - but these scripts seem to
me
>> like a
>> > vestige of the hybrid situation & no longer needed/especially
>> beneficial.
>> >
>> >
>> >>> I have some concern about adding these scripts back in as
they may
>> >> lead to
>> >>   > greater divergence in developer experience and/or
become less
>> >> relevant over
>> >>   > time and a weird thing for newcomers to stumble over,
perhaps. But
>> I
>> >> don't
>> >>   > feel /that/ strongly, if other folks particularly
prefer using
>> them,
>> >> they
>> >>   > seem mostly harmless.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think I understand your concerns. Could you
elaborate what
>> >> divergence you can see in the future? FWIW, if the scripts are
broken
>> >> and people stumble over them it means no one takes care of
them and
>> >> removal is adequate.
>> >>
>> > I'd generally prefer to remove things sooner rather than
later,
>> personally.
>> > I believe some of the original motivation was an offline
discussion
>> about
>> > adding more features (to trim unnecessary Phabricator fields, I
>> believe) to
>> > them & a response was that they're not really
used/encouraged & so
>> adding
>> > features wouldn't be especially valuable - so the thought was
to go the
>> > other way, rather than keeping them around, and building processes
that
>> > might only work with the scripts & then being let down when
those
>> processes
>> > aren't adhered to by most of the community (because
they're not using
>> the
>> > scripts) it'd be better to remove them and standardize
practices on the
>> > plain git tools.
>> >
>> > - Dave
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>     Johannes
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   > - Dave
>> >>   >
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Thanks,
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>   Johannes
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> On 5/12/20 2:10 PM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev
wrote:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> FWIW, if you do your development in git-branches,
it is a little
>> >> more than that.  IT ends up being:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> git push origin HEAD:master.
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Which is somewhat easy to mess up.  For example, I
inverted the
>> >> HEAD/master at one point and ended up creating a branch named
“HEAD” at
>> >> one point.
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at
lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Eric
Christopher via
>> >> llvm-dev
>> >>   >> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:59 AM
>> >>   >> To: Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com>
<yamauchi at google.com>
>> >>   >> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >>   >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Deleting git-svn
folder (git-llvm,
>> >> git-svnrevert, git-svnup)
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Just push :)
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> On Tue, May 12, 2020, 8:46 AM Hiroshi Yamauchi
>> >> <yamauchi at google.com<mailto:yamauchi at
google.com> <yamauchi at google.com
>> >>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>   >> I was also using "git llvm push" to
commit, sort of out of habit.
>> >> What's a recommended, alternative way to push?
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:57 AM Johannes Doerfert
via llvm-dev
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> I was actually using `git llvm` in my daily
workflow.
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Could you explain why we want people to move away
from that
>> script?
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> In addition to the convenience, it prevented me
from accidentally
>> >> creating a new branch (which I did before with push once).
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Cheers,
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>   Johannes
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> On 5/11/20 11:43 AM, Zola Bridges via llvm-dev
wrote:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Deleted this morning. Thanks!
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Zola Bridges
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:35 PM Eric Christopher
<
>> echristo at gmail.com>
>> >> <echristo at gmail.com><mailto:echristo at
gmail.com> <echristo at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Giving at least one explicit:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Sounds good to me.
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:01 PM Zola Bridges via
llvm-dev <
>> >>   >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Here is a link to the patch:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79348
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Zola Bridges
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:50 AM Zola Bridges
<zbrid at google.com>
>> >> <zbrid at google.com><mailto:zbrid at google.com>
<zbrid at google.com> wrote:
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Hi everyone,
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> I would like to delete this folder of svn to git
migration tools.
>> >>   >>
>> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/master/llvm/utils/git-svn
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> My understanding of these tools is that they were
useful for when
>> we
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since
the migration
>> is
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> complete, they can be deleted as they are either
unnecessary or
>> >> there are
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> other more common workflow options (ie git llvm
push --> git
>> push).
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>    - Is there any reason these scripts should
continue to exist
>> that
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>    I'm not aware of?
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>    - I'd like to delete these next Monday. Is
that timeline
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>    unacceptable to anyone?
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Thanks,
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> Zola Bridges
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> _______________________________________________
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >>   >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <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>
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >>   >>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >>   >> _______________________________________________
>> >>   >> LLVM Developers mailing
>> >> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >>
>> >>   >> _______________________________________________
>> >>   >> LLVM Developers mailing
>> >> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://
>> >> 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/20200513/c27aca2f/attachment-0001.html>