similar to: GitHub Hooks

So, It's been a while and the GitHub thread is officially dead, so I'll propose a development methodology based on the feedback from that thread. This is not *my* view, but all that was discussed in the threads. My objective is to form an official proposal to use Git as our main repository, overcoming all the problems we currently have without creating many others. In the end, I think

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

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 6:00 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 19 July 2016 at 17:54, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: >> Yep, I think the main benefit (so far) over just protected branches >> would be that we can also guarantee sane timestamps on master, What about linear history? Does not this require the "status

Right! Can you add a comment to the document review? The other two hooks were good (email, update umbrella), so I think we're set. Cheers, Renato On 20 Jul 2016 12:48 a.m., "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > I have already tested protected branches on GitHub successfully and found > it allowed exactly the pushes that were correct -- they must all

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

Now that we seem to be converging to an acceptable Git model, there was only one remaining doubt, and that's how the trigger to update a sequential ID will work. I've been in contact with GitHub folks, and this is in line with their suggestions... Given the nature of our project's repository structure, triggers in each repository can't just update their own sequential ID (like

> On Feb 25, 2016, at 3:33 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Kristof, Chandler, > > I think most of the responses seem favourable of the move, the > concerns being which Git repo we'll use (GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket), > but they're essentially identical on the git side. > > Infrastructure decisions will need to be

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, James Y Knight via lldb-dev < lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I don't think we should do any of that. It's too complicated -- and I > don't see the reason to even do it. > > There's a need for the "llvm-project" repository -- that's been discussed > plenty -- but where does the need for a separate

> -----Original Message----- > From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 3:16 PM > To: Robinson, Paul > Cc: Renato Golin; Justin Lebar; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories? > > > > On Jul 21, 2016, at 2:33 PM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <llvm- > dev at

Hi all, A short summary: Takumi has done 90% of the work here: https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project-submodule and I've been talking to GitHub, and here are the answers to my questions: > 1. How will the umbrella project's auto-increment hook work? Since the umbrella project cannot see the sub-modules' commits without some form of update, there are two ways to do this:

On 30 Jun 2016 10:20 p.m., "Robinson, Paul" <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > We've since stopped creating the tags, and gotten used to not having > them. We do the 'rev-list --count' trick which mainly gets recorded as > one component of the version number, and it has been working for us. Does that work for sub modules inside the umbrella project? How

> On Jul 5, 2016, at 3:44 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Quick re-cap. > > After a few rounds, not only the "external server" proposal got > obliterated as totally unnecessary, but the idea that we may even need > a hook at all is now challenged. This is not clear to me. How is the umbrella repository updated? —

Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev <at> lists.llvm.org> writes: > > This is a little more complex. SVN is very conservative on history, > > and that saves us from destroying the origin. Git, on the other hand, > > allows anyone with write access to completely wipe out the repo. I > > don't think anyone would want to, but accidents do happen in git. >

Perhaps it helps to know that I have access to the machines and have helped debug many of the current problems. I'm not speaking from the outside, guessing how hard things are. I also think you are assuming a lot about where services can be hosted and at which cost (labour, not hardware). So, unless you are volunteering to take care of the whole infrastructure, I suggest taking the opinion

On 30 June 2016 at 17:33, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > Agreed, the llvm-project repository can completely take on the role of the > SQL database in Renato's proposal. Hum, doing it in a separate server was suggested by the GitHub folks, so I just assumed they can't do that in the umbrella project for some reason. I'm all for using the umbrella if we can, I

From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 4:15 PM To: Robinson, Paul Cc: Clang Dev; LLDB Dev; LLVM Dev; Reid Kleckner; llvm-foundation at lists.llvm.org Subject: RE: [cfe-dev] [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook On 30 Jun 2016 10:20 p.m., "Robinson, Paul" <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > We've since stopped creating

> On Apr 20, 2017, at 12:39 AM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > What would be the status of these buildbots? Is it for your private usage? > > I intend for them to be public Windows buildbots for libc++. I’m not sure

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 26 July 2016 at 18:36, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> Yes, just like we do when exporting from SVN today I think. >> (The script might be slightly less complex since git is natively handling the export we’re doing today). > > And this would be on a

On 19 July 2016 at 22:35, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > Claiming that it "will be *a lot* less” burden that now is easy, but I don’t see any obvious fact to back this up. > What is the current maintenance requirement of SVN/Git? Can someone who knows provides some fact? I'll let Anton tell his side, and Tanya talk about the real costs, but here are some

What would be the status of these buildbots? Is it for your private usage? Otherwise having “project' bots” using a non-official mirror may sound like a strange situation to me. — Mehdi > On Apr 19, 2017, at 5:04 PM, Eric Fiselier via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Adding cfe-dev list... > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at