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 in an organized way and we could get a better idea of how the community feels on the topic.
I am happy to try to set something like this up. -Tanya > On Jun 2, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev > <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > A little summary... > > After a lot of discussion, I think we converged to a few issues that > we need to solved before we finally decide to move. > > Firstly, the responses were overwhelmingly positive (I counted 20 of > the ~25 people strongly supporting and another 2~3 weakly supporting). > This is a good indication that the move could be very beneficial to > the community as a whole, including downstream infrastructure, not > just the reduction in upstream infrastructure admin costs. > > But that doesn't mean we have cleared up all the issues... > > > The benefits I gathered from the thread: > > * Infrastructure admin (not just server costs) is too expensive. > We're not sysadmins and maintaining all the tools is a full time job. > Volunteering works for odd problems, not for production services. > Furthermore, most of the infrastructure we need is covered by > GitHub/Lab/BB for free, on a scale that we would not have, even with a > full time sysadmin. Gratis. > > * Having one official repository instead of two is beneficial to most > developers. A lot of people (most people replying on this thread), use > Git in addition to SVN. Git also seems to be used more on validation > infrastructure than SVN (no example was put forward on this thread, at > least), due to the simplicity of controlling the repository and the > tools available. Reports of how teams decided to script Git to have > linear behaviour instead of falling back to SVN are enlightening. > > * Git developer tooling is a growing trend, while SVN tooling is > dying. This is not just about GUIs, but repository management (GitHub, > GitLab, BitBucket, etc versus SourceForge), bisects, branches, > remotes, hooks, workdir, submodules and all the new development seem > to be done on Git nowadays, not SVN. Windows may be an odd one related > to GUIs, but Visual Studio has Git integration and I hear it's similar > to the other MSVC VCSs. GitHub's desktop interface seems pretty cool, > too. > > * Web repositories make it *a lot* easier to create add-hoc pull > requests by non-developers, which could boost the number of > contributions and future contributors, as well as external projects > using LLVM components. > > * GitHub's SVN RW interface has been reported to work well for > simpler projects, but we need a more thorough examination before > declare it good enough for our purposes. > > * All reports on the thread pointed that downstream infrastructure is > already using Git, so that's one less problem to worry about if we do > move. > > > The issues that were raised: > > * Co-dependent patches already break buildbots, but the sequential ID > helps us identify and ignore. They will continue to break, even if we > use git sub-modules, so that doesn't change much, but it will be > harder to spot the issue. Server side hooks may help, as well as > sub-modules. > > * Windows tooling may be an issue. There's a separate thread handling > that part, so I won't cover it here. But I have to say it wasn't by a > long shot a resonant problem. It may also have some problem with > symlinks and in-tree checkouts (when interacting with llvm-projects > and sub-modules). > > * Sub-modules may help with a lot of the current relationship we have > inside the SVN repo, but it also has some problems. Namely they: > - require a modern version of git (1.7/1.9), but that's 2013 onward. > - may need additional server side scripting, but we can keep that > in another repo to control it. > - won't replace SVN's monotonic IDs, but do we *really* need them? > Sub-modules have a bad fame, I gather, but people in the thread > reported success on using it to build validation and release > infrastructure as well as doing bisects, checking out code, etc. We > probably need some documentation on how to do these things, as well as > some scripts to help people work out the dependencies (or use them). > > * GitHub/Lab/BB are not perfect. They have some interface issues, but > nothing more serious than we already have on our current > infrastructure. We'll probably have to keep Bugzilla (as GitHub's own > is really poor), but we can replace all our repos (SVN, Git), > visualisation tools (ViewVC, Klaus) and Phabricator. > > Of all those issues, Windows tooling is a minor problem that shouldn't > impact decision that much and sub-modules need a lot of ironing out to > be considered good enough. My *personal* take away is that sub-modules > (or an alternative server side solution) is the only strong technical > issue we need to solve before we decide. > > > How does a move look like? > > If we decide to move, the proposed schedule is something like this: > > STEP #1 : Pre Move > > 0. Update docs to mention the move, so people are aware the it's going on. > 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 a la llvm-project-submodules setup in the > official account. (Optional or necessary for the buildbots?) > 4. Make sure bisecting with llvm-project-submodules is a good experience > 5. Make sure no one has any blocker > > STEP #2 : Git Move > > 6. Update the buildbots to pick up updates and commits from the > official git repository > 7. Update Phabricator to pick up commits from the official git repository > 8. Tell people living downstream to pick up commits from the official > git repository > 9. Give things time to settle. We could play some games like disabling > the svn repository for a few hours on purpose so that people can test > that their infrastructure has really become independent of the svn > repository. > > ... Until this point nothing has changed for developers, it will just > boil down to a lot of work for buildbot and other infrastructure > owners ... > > STEP #3: Write Access Move > > 10. Collect peoples GitHub account information, give them push access. > Ideally while still locking the GitHub repository somehow... > 11. Switch SVN repository to read-only and allow pushes to the GitHub > repository. > 12. Mirror Git to SVN. > > STEP #4 : Post Move > > 13. Archive the SVN repository, if GitHub's SVN is good enough. > 14. Review and update *all* LLVM documentation. > 15. Review website links pointing to viewvc/klaus/phab etc. to point > to GitHub instead. > > This is an adapted version of Matthias' and Mehdi's proposal, and it's > not a final version in any way, but these are the basic things we need > to worry about. > > > Steps from here... > > Aaron has started the Windows tooling thread, and if you have any > comments, please follow from there. I suggest sub-modules supporters > to start another thread to iron that out separately. > > Once those issues are resolved, we shall start another thread to > finally take a decision to move or not. > > Thanks everyone! > > cheers, > --renato > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
