search for: 102656

...commit you must have it at the remote HEAD. If HEAD has changed > you need to rebase/rebuild/retest/retry. With a single monster repo, a > commit to 'lld' means I have to go through this pain to put in my 'clang' > tweak.”, http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/102656.html > - Justin Bogner: " it's easy[1] to manage the set of repos with a script > that cd's to each one and runs whatever git command.” And " if all of the > repos are combined into one, you have to do work when you only want some of > them. In my experience, this is b...

...it, to push a commit you must have it at the remote HEAD. If HEAD has changed you need to rebase/rebuild/retest/retry. With a single monster repo, a commit to 'lld' means I have to go through this pain to put in my 'clang' tweak.”, http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/102656.html - Justin Bogner: " it's easy[1] to manage the set of repos with a script that cd's to each one and runs whatever git command.” And " if all of the repos are combined into one, you have to do work when you only want some of them. In my experience, this is basically always”. ht...

Hi Mehdi, This a narrow view IMO: the criteria #1 Chris mentioned to include projects > in the monorepo was " must be tightly coupled to specific versions”. > It means that even with the test suite (and possibly some runtime) out of > the monorepo, all the software that is tightly coupled would be in the > monorepo, and that alone would be enough to alleviate the needs for (most

> On Jul 28, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Lang Hames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Aaaand I'm (mostly) caught up. Phew. > > FWIW Chris B is right: I had been put off commenting on this thread by the length, and the number of git discussions that have come before this. He convinced me to make the effort to put my 2 cents in though - thanks Chris. > > So

Hi Justin, Firstly I really appreciate you taking the mantle and pushing this forward! Like Justin B I'll be bowing out after this. I thought it important because I don't believe you'll build consensus in this thread. I think the best that can be hoped for is opposition to give up fighting; advantages are to be had on both sides by different types of user and we've seen that many

...it, to push a commit you must have it at the remote HEAD. If HEAD has changed you need to rebase/rebuild/retest/retry. With a single monster repo, a commit to 'lld' means I have to go through this pain to put in my 'clang' tweak.”, http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/102656.html <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/102656.html> 2) Chris Bienemann: What about a *contributor* only wanting to contribute to compiler-rt? He has to pay the price of cloning the full repo. http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/103052.html <http://lists.llv...

Maybe we can hit the pause button on this issue of a survey vs consensus-building. I think it's a distraction from the main issue here, and it makes it harder for everyone else to participate in the thread. That said, I really do think that perspectives like Justin B's below are important. That is, if people have a problem with the monorepo, it is useful they can join the thread and say