similar to: Need advice on migrating from GitHub/llvm-mirror

> 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 >

Hello, I was wondering what was the current expected practice for committing patches to LLVM now that the Git monorepo is here. I have commit access to SVN but when I try to land my patched through GitHub I get an error saying "Permission to llvm/llvm-project.git denied". Depending on the answer, the documentation might need to be slightly clarified: the getting started documents for

What's the status here? Can someone keep https://llvm.org/docs/Proposals/GitHubMove.html updated with the current status of things? And once things are usable, probably update https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#for-developers-to-work-with-a-git-monorepo as well. On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:57 AM Jacob Carlborg via lldb-dev < lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 2018-10-24

Hi all In case anyone has a remote to the (unofficial) https://github.com/llvm-mirror, please note that all the repos are at least 8 days behind. There's no warning about it. The page still says it's "Updated every five minutes". Best Stefan -- https://flowcrypt.com/pub/stefan.graenitz at gmail.com

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"

It'd be nice to know what about our repository is breaking it. Do they have any idea what that is? For example -- I think that we probably will want to archive+discard many of the random branches and tags currently in the repository. If the large number of branches and tags is breaking it, then maybe it just starts working after we do so. On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:53 PM Anton Korobeynikov

I was under the impression that the (non-monorepo) separate LLVM and Clang git repos hosted at git.llvm.org would be maintained for a year after the transition to the mono repo. I don't recall where I got that impression from; probably from some of the many emails on the migration topic. I noticed today that updates to these repos ceased on October 22nd of last year following transition to

Isn’t the checkout a local operation that should not involved GitHub ? Did you mean the clone operation ? And about sparse-checkout, I though they require a full clone of the repository anyway. Is there a way to do a partial clone only ? Note: If you don’t need the whole history local, you may perform a swallow clone (using —depth 1). > Le 9 nov. 2018 à 01:02, Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev

My expectation was that they would continue to be fed from the updates to the svn repo. But again, I don't recall where I got that impression from. It may have been a bad assumption on my part. Tom. From: Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 12:36 PM To: Tom Honermann <thonerma at synopsys.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Michael

> 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 10/11/2018 03:27 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: > TLDR: https://github.com/llvm-git-prototype/ exists as a read-only mirror of SVN, and is being updated continuously with a script running on an llvm-project AWS VM. > Hi James, What is the current status of the monorepo, have you resolved all the known issues with the history? Are there any other changes that need to be made

Hi all, As you probably know, we’ll meet on the first day of the conference, right before lunch, to discuss about a possible move of our hosting to Git/GitHub, and consider the various options and associated tradeoff (Schedule entry here: http://sched.co/8Yzj <http://sched.co/8Yzj> ) I’d like to remind you that the detail of the proposals and the variants is online here:

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 Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 4:04 PM NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, David. > > On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 7:46 AM David Jones via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi James, >> >> I've started working with the prototype layout in context of Google's >> internal infrastructure. With deep apologies, I

> 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 Oct 13, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 13 October 2016 at 20:45, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> This is a point of contention and a concern that Chris voiced about the monorepo. It should be in the survey. > > A lot of concerns were voiced on the discussion, not all of them here. > >

> 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

Hi James, I've started working with the prototype layout in context of Google's internal infrastructure. With deep apologies, I have a (very late, I know) pair of requests that have only recently solidified for me. 1. Could you add annotated tags after the cut point of each release? (I think this would probably be easy.) 2. Could you mark branch/tag operations somehow other than a

Hi, We are still on track to retire SVN and complete the transition to GitHub by Oct 21, 2019 (This year's US Dev Meeting). Even though this 3+ months away, it is very important that you begin to migrate your workflows to GitHub as soon as possible. For developers, this means using the git-llvm script to commit changes and for CI systems or other read-only use cases can begin fetching code

That last post I see on this mailing list is from November <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/106941.html> concerning the results of the survey. So I was wondering what the latest status for moving to github? -- Wnk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: