search for: 103052

...standard git commands for interacting with it.” http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/102612.html - 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.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/103052.html> On linear history and sequential revision number: - [multiple people]: we should keep a linear history (haven’t found good reasons). Note that no Github proposal (submodule or monorepo) are addressing this. Tim proposed...

...r > interacting with it.” > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/102612.html > - 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 > > > On linear history and sequential revision number: > > - [multiple people]: we should keep a linear history (haven’t found good > reasons). Note that no Github proposal (submodule or monorepo) are > addressing this. Tim proposed a solution based on checked-status but...

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

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

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

> 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

...ermail/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.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/103052.html> I haven’t seen a good answer for 1), and for 2) it’ll come down to a balance of “how much a burden it is in 2016 to download 500MB once to contribute to a project”, and how many people (and number of commits) does this rep...