search for: r23456

...r that, but with a github hosting it may still be fragile. > > What exactly is the concrete benefit of monotonically increasing > revision numbers? It's completely foreign to git's architecture. I'm notified that bug is fixed in r12345, my binary says "clang -v" is r23456, if I observe the bug I know there is a problem immediately. Another use case is that it provides a cross-repository reference. I'm sure that if you lookup the previous discussion about moving to git (two years ago, and four years ago I believe), the threads contain plenty of arguments from pe...

...think we *want* to severely limit how history is allowed to look. We don’t want the entire development history of your long-lived branch coming to mainline.” http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-June/100665.html - Mehdi: "bug is fixed in r12345, my binary says "clang -v" is r23456 [or bot says it tested r23456], if I observe the bug [or the bot still fails] I know there is a problem immediately." — Mehdi > > James > On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 19:33, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com <mailto:jlebar at google.com>> wrote: > Maybe we can hit t...

...everely limit how history is > allowed to look. We don’t want the entire development history of your > long-lived branch coming to mainline.” > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-June/100665.html > - Mehdi: "bug is fixed in r12345, my binary says "clang -v" is r23456 [or > bot says it tested r23456], if I observe the bug [or the bot still fails] I > know there is a problem immediately." > > > — > Mehdi > > > > > > > James > On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 19:33, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote: > >>...

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

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 May 31, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On May 31, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> There has been some discussion on IRC about SVN hosting and the perils >> of doing it ourselves. The consensus on the current discussion was >> that moving to a