similar to: RFC: Move the test-suite LLVM project to GitHub?

I don't really care where the repository is located, but I do have some comments on the future test-suite directions: > On Feb 24, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Subject kinda says it all. Here is my rationale: > > The test-suite is really weird relative to the rest of the LLVM project: > 1) It contains all

My biggest concerns and care-abouts are largely what Matthias expressed below. Most of them have been addressed already further down the thread. I hope that the move to github in practice would mean that the only difference is that I 'git clone https://github...' instead of 'git clone http://llvm.org/git/test-suite.git' ? Thanks, Kristof On 24/02/2016 22:25, Matthias Braun

Yes, I would hope that for most this boils down to cloning a different URL. Except for folks pushing patches to the test suite, I'm moderately confident there would be no other difference. It's the pushing patches side that would need to be sorted out in more detail. On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:48 AM Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at arm.com> wrote: > My biggest concerns and

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Subject kinda says it all. Here is my rationale: > > The test-suite is really weird relative to the rest of the LLVM project: > 1) It contains all manner of crazily licensed code. > 2) We don't really care about the history at all. Any concerns around linear > history

On 24 February 2016 at 20:57, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The test-suite is really weird relative to the rest of the LLVM project: > 1) It contains all manner of crazily licensed code. > 2) We don't really care about the history at all. Any concerns around linear > history or bisection are pretty much irrelevant. > 3) We don't

On 2/24/16 4:25 PM, Matthias Braun via llvm-dev wrote: > I don't really care where the repository is located, but I do have > some comments on the future test-suite directions: > >> On Feb 24, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Subject kinda says it all.

Ah - I do commit to the test-suite from time to time. So, could the github-based project be set up so that we can just do 'git push'? Or would we have to go through the pull requests route on every commit? I'm afraid I've never committed to any github project before, so I am a bit confused on how committing would work in practice. Obviously, I hope for the mechanism to commit to

Dear Chandler, First, can you articulate why you want to move the test suite to Github? Is it taking up too much space, or is there some other problem that you're trying to solve? I think you clearly explain why moving the revision history isn't necessary, but it's not clear to me what problem you are trying to solve. Second, if we move the revision history to Github, it would

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:01 PM Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Am 24.02.2016 um 21:57 schrieb Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev: > > For all of these reasons, and also because I'd like to see how well (or > > rather, how poorly) a service like GitHub actually works for the project, > > it seems like splitting the test-suite out of

On 2/24/16 1:57 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote: > Subject kinda says it all. Here is my rationale: > > The test-suite is really weird relative to the rest of the LLVM project: > 1) It contains all manner of crazily licensed code. > 2) We don't really care about the history at all. Any concerns around > linear history or bisection are pretty much irrelevant. > 3)

Am 24.02.2016 um 21:57 schrieb Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev: > For all of these reasons, and also because I'd like to see how well (or > rather, how poorly) a service like GitHub actually works for the project, > it seems like splitting the test-suite out of the current subversion > repository and moving it there is the right call. My experience from a few years of contributing

That is what I'm proposing, and Tim is helping us test. We should reach a solution quickly, and once we do, I'll update the document. Feel free to try his repo, I'll only try tomorrow. If you guys come up with a clear flow before that, let me know. Cheers, Renato On 20 Jul 2016 12:36 a.m., "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > I've not read

I wanted to present some of the particular reasons why I'm pretty strongly opposed to a purely flat layout of projects the way the current github 'llvm-project' repository looks, as that hasn't happened on the list yet. I'm replying to myself as I don't see a much better place to hang that conversation. On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 7:38 PM Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at

Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 24, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I just want to clarify in case anyone is confused: I am in no way suggesting that we would use pull requests, issues, or anything else as part of the workflow for the test suite. I'm fine if folks want to talk about that later, but I really view it as a

Can you show on Tim's repo how that won't work? Cheers, Renato On 20 Jul 2016 12:59 a.m., "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2016, at 4:44 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > That is what I'm proposing, and Tim is helping us test. We should reach a > solution quickly, and once we

Am 25.02.2016 um 03:25 schrieb Chandler Carruth: > I just want to clarify in case anyone is confused: I am in no way > suggesting that we would use pull requests, issues, or anything else as > part of the workflow for the test suite. I'm fine if folks want to talk > about that later, but I really view it as a separate discussion. Hm... then I guess I am confused about that

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 9:43 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hey Duncan, > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:28 PM Duncan Exon Smith via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> To facilitate collaboration on an upstreaming effort (see "More context" >> below), we'd like to *push a branch* (with history)

So, there's been a bit of a misunderstanding about the hooks that are supported in GitHub, and after talking to the GitHub staff, I'd like to clarify what they are and how we can use them. 1. Pre-commit hooks, avoiding forced pushes / re-order GitHub doesn't support server hooks due to security concerns. But there is an alternative:

Summing up the thread, It seems pretty clear that there is general interest in at least investigating this path. There are specific (reasonable) concerns about the mechanics of how it will work, which only really makes sense as we don't know how it will work yet! Next steps: 1) Actually push a clone of the test suite onto github and sort out any boring details of getting the hosting of it

I don't feel like I can unilaterally declare this topic closed, since there was an objection to that last time. But with no additional feedback after another week, I'd still really like to close this out, and start moving forward with the original plan, again... On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 2:28 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > It's been a week and a half more