similar to: GitHub anyone?

I'm in favor of both going to git as the source of truth, and then switching the hosting to github. Echoing everyone else, this unlocks a lot of good stuff that I won't repeat, and most of it can be handled independently from the VCS move. The major blocker I see for the move is figuring out how we want to coordinate versions between the related LLVM projects. I hear *terrible* things

> 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 Git-only solution would have some disvantages, but > many advantages. Furthermore, not hosting our own repos would save us

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Renato Golin via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Folks, > > 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 Git-only solution would have some disvantages, but > many advantages. Furthermore, not hosting our own repos

> 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

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:24:08PM -0400, Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Renato Golin via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Folks, > > > > 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

> On May 31, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:24:08PM -0400, Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev wrote: >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Renato Golin via cfe-dev >> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> There has been some discussion on IRC

peanut gallery comments from a git hater (We use git for all source revision control) On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Renato Golin via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Folks, > > 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 Git-only solution would have

I personally find this email thread very hard to follow and read (this isn’t anyones fault.. its just a lot of replies). I am sure others do as well. I think it would be good to have a form/survey of some sort that can get feedback from users such as: who they are, how they use LLVM/contributions/etc, if they are pro-github move, how it impacts them, etc. People could then submit their feedback

So here's a straw-man proposal for a github migration: 1. Register an official github project with the llvm foundation. 2. Setup another (read-only) mirror of llvm.org/git at this github project 3. Make sure we have ala llvm-project-submodules setup in the official account. (Optional or necessary for the buildbots?) 4. Update the buildbots to pick up updates and commits from the official git

On 1 June 2016 at 17:02, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote: > Do you have a set of volunteers lined up to do such a migration? Getting > people willing to do the migration will obviously be key, and that was the > one thing I didn't see in the original email. Hi John, Well, first we need to know if people are in favour, then if the migration won't bring any

On 31 May 2016 at 21:24, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > Are we sure that github's svn integration works with common tools on > Windows, like TortoiseSVN? That's a good question. Can you try them out and report back? cheers, --renato

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 31 May 2016 at 21:24, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: >> Are we sure that github's svn integration works with common tools on >> Windows, like TortoiseSVN? > > That's a good question. Can you try them out and report back? >From my very simple testing,

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:29 PM David Greene via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> writes: > > > What is the practical plan to enforce the lack of merges? When we > > looked into this GitHub would not support this unless also forcing > > every change to go through a pull request (i.e. no pre-receive hooks >

> On May 31, 2016, at 1:42 PM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On May 31, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:24:08PM -0400, Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev wrote: >>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Renato Golin via cfe-dev >>>

> On May 31, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Chris Lattner via cfe-dev <cfe-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

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:19 PM Eric Christopher via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:42 PM David Greene via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > > > > How about: > > > > > > Require a rebase, followed by git

Here's another question about the current status of this. It's close to two months after the official monorepo was supposed to be published. Can someone give an update? Is this on hold indefinitely? Are there concrete issues that people are working on and this will happen as soon as those are resolved? At the least, I'm assuming the "SVN will shut down 1 year from now"

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:32 AM Renato Golin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 02:26, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > It's worth mentioning that Phabricator can read strings of the format > 'Depends on D1234' from commit messages and create those relationships for > you. >

> On Jan 7, 2020, at 17:35, Jonas Devlieghere via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:16 PM Bill Wendling via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:59 PM Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Bill, >>> >>> On 01/07, Bill

IMO, if we're switching to git, we should just be clear up front that all committers will be expected to switch to git as well -- or at least, if they want to use something else (e.g. mercurial's git bridge/etc), that it's their own problem. It is truly NOT that big an imposition to require the use of git. And knowing how to use git at at least a basic level is an important skill for