search for: multirepos

> And if it is, then the "only thing a monorepo gets you" isn't something that you need a monorepo to get. This is an *extremely important* point to understand, so let me try to be really clear about the current state of the world and the state of the world under the two "move to git" proposals. Today, all commits ultimately end up in SVN. Our SVN is a effectively a

> On 2016-Sep-18, at 09:51, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Folks, > > After feedback from Chris and Mehdi, I have added one long text answer > to *each* critical questions (impact on productivity), so that people > can extend their reasoning. > > But I have not made them compulsory, so that people that don't know > much

> On 2016-Oct-13, at 11:23, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks a lot Duncan, I really like this! I totally support adopting this scheme now. See inline a few quite minor comments. > > Renato: are you still interested and available now to set-up the survey? We should close on this *this week*. > > >> On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:07

By the way, I've been using the existing read-only monorepo [1] for a few days now. The intent is to commit via the script I put together [2], although I haven't committed anything other than a testing commit [3]. All I can say is, *wow* is it nice. I hid everything I don't care about using a sparse checkout [4]. Many of my tools (e.g. ctrl-p [5] [6], ycm [7]) suddenly work better

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 11:03 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > | 6. How important is cross-project blame, grep, etc.? >   <> > I don't understand "cross-project blame" as it works on one file at a time? True, not straightforward blame. My workflow when trying to track the history of some code involves frequently

> The only thing a monorepo gets you that strictly isn’t possible without > it is the ability to commit to multiple projects in a single commit. > Personally I don’t think that is a big enough justification, but that is > my opinion, not a fact. Okay, I just bumped into r277008, in which commits to llvm, clang, and clang-tools-extra all have the same SVN revision number. I don't

> On Jul 31, 2016, at 12:06 AM, Justin Lebar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> And if it is, then the "only thing a monorepo gets you" isn't something that you need a monorepo to get. > > This is an *extremely important* point to understand, so let me try to > be really clear about the current state of the world and the state of >

...IRC I've had a bunch of people just begging me for this. Putative scripts that allow monorepo users to commit to the multirepo would not be able to translate cross-cutting commits into a single commit in the umbrella repository without cooperation from the script that translates commits to the multirepos into commits in the umbrella repository (that's the one that contains all the multirepos as git subrepositories). It's possible -- it's turing complete --, but it would be very complicated. Still more complicated would be writing a script that would allow monorepo users to push to put...

...of people just begging me for this. > > Putative scripts that allow monorepo users to commit to the multirepo > would not be able to translate cross-cutting commits into a single > commit in the umbrella repository without cooperation from the script > that translates commits to the multirepos into commits in the umbrella > repository (that's the one that contains all the multirepos as git > subrepositories). It's possible -- it's turing complete --, but it > would be very complicated. > > Still more complicated would be writing a script that would allow >...

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 13, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com <mailto:dexonsmith at apple.com>> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 2016-Oct-13, at 11:23, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at

> On Jul 31, 2016, at 12:36 AM, Justin Lebar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> This suggests what we really want in this case are several updates (one to each repository) on a branch that is then merged in one instant into the umbrella repository. Then the only thing the bots would see would be the merge commit and thus state is synchronized. > > The

> On Jul 31, 2016, at 12:56 AM, Michael Gottesman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 31, 2016, at 12:36 AM, Justin Lebar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >>> This suggests what we really want in this case are several updates (one to each repository) on a branch

...ng me for this. >> >> Putative scripts that allow monorepo users to commit to the multirepo >> would not be able to translate cross-cutting commits into a single >> commit in the umbrella repository without cooperation from the script >> that translates commits to the multirepos into commits in the umbrella >> repository (that's the one that contains all the multirepos as git >> subrepositories). It's possible -- it's turing complete --, but it >> would be very complicated. >> >> Still more complicated would be writing a script t...

Folks, It's 1st of September, and we don't have the document nor the survey ready. With the US meeting on 3-4 November, that leaves us only 2 months to do everything, and I'm not sure we'll be able to if we delay much more. Being the devil's advocate and hoping this doesn't spiral down (again), there were a few pertinent questions left unanswered from the previous

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 11:56 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Duncan, > > I don't understand your concerns. > > First, the choice between sub-modules and mono-repo has been put > forward as the only two choices because people felt that, if we let it > open, we'd have too many different implementation details and we'd >

On 19 August 2016 at 19:35, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > I think you misunderstood what I meant here. Whether "moving to git" > will affect my workflow depends very much on "how we're moving to > git". That's exactly what I understood. :) > For example, if we do a monorepo, I may now need to lay code out > differently on my

> On Jul 28, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote: > > Thanks again for your thoughts, Chris. > >> As a straw man I would suggest the following criteria for inclusion into the mono-repo: >> >> (1) Projects in the mono-repo must be tightly coupled to specific versions or commits of other projects in the mono-repo > > I'm fine

On 19 August 2016 at 18:20, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > The one time cost of the mono-repo proposal is drastically different > than that of the multi-repo. True. But maybe not as different as from one company / project to another. I'm assuming some people will suffer a lot more than others on either choice. > I already use git, but depending on how

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of > Justin Lebar via llvm-dev > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 1:32 PM > To: Chris Bieneman > Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories? > > Thanks for elaborating, Chris. > > > Case Study 1 - Simple development

Hi all- I was wondering if anyone knew what the status/schedule of the SVN to git/github transition was? I thought I saw that at the November meeting it was agreed upon, but I'm not sure I saw any progress since? Thanks, Erich