jlebar added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463#495211, @vladisld wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463#494828, @jlebar wrote:
>
> > I think the general feeling is that most of us (myself included) would
> > rather not learn a new tool if there's a simpler >alternative, such as
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Vlad Dovlekaev via llvm-commits <
llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> vladisld added a comment.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463#494828, @jlebar wrote:
>
> > I think the general feeling is that most of us (myself included) would
> rather not learn a new too
beanz added a subscriber: beanz.
beanz added a comment.
@rengolin, thank you for putting this all together. It is very well thought
out, and I really like the shape it took. I have a few minor nitpick comments
inline.
Thanks,
-Chris
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:58
@@
jlebar added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463#494568, @vladisld wrote:
> Have the alternatives to sub-modules and monolithic repository been discussed
> ?
Hi, Vlad.
Please see the ongoing thread in llvm-dev, entitled "[RFC] One or many git
repositories?".
Tools such as git-repo
jlebar added a comment.
Hi, Renato.
Just to explain why I'm going to go forward with this RFC about a monolithic
repository: From speaking with some top contributors on IRC, I have heard that
they feel that the discussion of whether to move to git has been conflated with
the discussion of how
rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a reviewer: rengolin.
rengolin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I'm auto accepting this proposal, as it seems to have ran its course.
The commit is r276097.
If anyone has any additional comment/suggestion, please su
rengolin added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463#489483, @jlebar wrote:
> Again, we can make this work with submodules, but it's a giant pain, see my
> earlier comment.
(...)
> I've read as many of these as I can find in the past few hours, and every
> argument I have found is, i
jlebar added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463#489461, @rengolin wrote:
> You will not be required to use submodules at all, as we'll all use the
> individual projects, like we have always been. I don't understand why people
> keep going back to it.
There is a key use case that is
rengolin added a comment.
You will not be required to use submodules at all, as we'll all use the
individual projects, like we have always been. I don't understand why people
keep going back to it.
Having a single repository was part of the original proposal for years, and
every time it was sh
jlebar added a comment.
FYI after talking to Chandler, I'm going to write up a separate proposal for
the one-repository thing and send it to the list tomorrow. The suggestion was
that this phabricator thread isn't the right place to have this discussion.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
___
jlebar added a subscriber: jlebar.
jlebar added a comment.
I'm sure you all have thought about this more than I have, and I apologize if
this has been brought up before because I haven't been following the thread
closely. But I am not convinced by this document that using subrepositories
beats
On 7/19/16 8:55 AM, Robinson, Paul wrote:
I think we could emulate any pre-commit hook we like via GitHub
WebHooks by having two repositories: llvm and llvm-staging (say).
People push to llvm-staging, which notifies some LLVM server we own.
That does basic sanity checks and pushes to llvm prop
> > I think we could emulate any pre-commit hook we like via GitHub
> > WebHooks by having two repositories: llvm and llvm-staging (say).
> >
> > People push to llvm-staging, which notifies some LLVM server we own.
> > That does basic sanity checks and pushes to llvm proper if passed.
>
> I think
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64469.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++ docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,254 @@
+===
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64468.
rengolin added a comment.
Formatting issues (bullet points)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++ do
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64467.
rengolin added a comment.
More updates, following recent comments.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
===
--- /dev/null
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:68
@@ +67,3 @@
+ * Collaborate with peers directly, even without access to the Internet
+ * Have multiple trees without multiplying disk space, multiple concurrent
builds
+
vsk wrote:
> What do
filcab added a comment.
Thanks a lot for working on this!
Filipe
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
> On Jul 18, 2016, at 8:23 PM, Tim Northover via cfe-commits
> wrote:
>
>>> Can't handle the update of the umbrella *because of GitHub*, this could be
>>> possible with our own hosting of git for instance.
>>>
>> Pre-commit hooks are not designed to update the umbrella. Webhooks will be
>> a
dberris added a subscriber: dberris.
dberris added a comment.
Mostly wording comments, thank you for writing this up!
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:78
@@ +77,3 @@
+
+GitHub, like GitLab and BitBucket, provide FREE code hosting for open source
+projects. Essentially, they
friss added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:220
@@ +219,3 @@
+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
vsk wrote
>> Can't handle the update of the umbrella *because of GitHub*, this could be
>> possible with our own hosting of git for instance.
>>
> Pre-commit hooks are not designed to update the umbrella. Webhooks will be
> able to update the umbrella with a small external service, as proposed in the
> IR
vsk added subscribers: friss, vsk.
vsk added a comment.
@rengolin thanks for putting this together! I chimed in with some comments
in-line.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:68
@@ +67,3 @@
+ * Collaborate with peers directly, even without access to the Internet
+ * Have mul
jroelofs added a subscriber: jroelofs.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:127
@@ +126,3 @@
+* The projects' repositories will remain identical, with a new address
(GitHub).
+* They'll continue to have SVN RW access, but will also gain Git RW access.
+* The linear history can s
probinson added a subscriber: probinson.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:141
@@ +140,3 @@
+has commit access to our current repository. In the future, you only need to
+provide the GitHub user to be granted access.
+
This reads a little bit like "we will cre
compnerd added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:127
@@ +126,3 @@
+* The projects' repositories will remain identical, with a new address
(GitHub).
+* They'll continue to have SVN RW access, but will also gain Git RW access.
+* The linear history can still be
mehdi_amini added a subscriber: mehdi_amini.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:122
@@ +121,3 @@
+of understanding the *sequence* in which commits were added by using the
+``git rev-list --count hash`` or ``git describe hash`` commands.
+
filcab wrote:
> How ea
mehdi_amini added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:209
@@ +208,3 @@
+ well as a webhook to update the umbrella project (see below).
+3. Make sure we have an llvm-project (with submodules) setup in the official
+ account, with all necessary hooks (history,
mehdi_amini added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:199
@@ +198,3 @@
+
+Here's a proposed plan:
+
Annoyingly my comment does no longer show-up next to the point it was referring
to, it was about your third point:
> Make sure we have an llvm-
winksaville added a subscriber: winksaville.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:132
@@ +131,3 @@
+
+There is no need to additional tags, flags and properties, nor of external
+services controlling the history, since both SVN and *git rev-list* can already
This
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:127
@@ +126,3 @@
+* The projects' repositories will remain identical, with a new address
(GitHub).
+* They'll continue to have SVN RW access, but will also gain Git RW access.
+* The linear history can still be
delcypher added a subscriber: delcypher.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:102
@@ +101,3 @@
+
+How will the new workflow look like
+===
s/How will/What will/
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:136
@@ +135,3
mehdi_amini added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:209
@@ +208,3 @@
+ well as a webhook to update the umbrella project (see below).
+3. Make sure we have an llvm-project (with submodules) setup in the official
+ account, with all necessary hooks (history,
mehdi_amini added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:208
@@ +207,3 @@
+3. Make sure we have an llvm-project (with submodules) setup in the official
+ account, with all necessary hooks (history, update, merges).
+4. Make sure bisecting with llvm-project works.
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:127
@@ +126,3 @@
+* The projects' repositories will remain identical, with a new address
(GitHub).
+* They'll continue to have SVN RW access, but will also gain Git RW access.
+* The linear history can still be
rengolin created this revision.
rengolin added reviewers: lattner, chandlerc, jyknight, mehdi_amini, MatzeB,
probinson, t.p.northover, chapuni, delcypher, dberlin, rsmith, beanz,
cmatthews, asl, aaron.ballman, bcraig, Bigcheese, jroelofs, theraven, greened,
hong.gyu.kim, rafael, AlexDenisov, sil
jyknight added a subscriber: jyknight.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:209
@@ +208,3 @@
+ well as a webhook to update the umbrella project (see below).
+3. Make sure we have an llvm-project (with submodules) setup in the official
+ account, with all necessary hooks (hist
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:209
@@ +208,3 @@
+ well as a webhook to update the umbrella project (see below).
+3. Make sure we have an llvm-project (with submodules) setup in the official
+ account, with all necessary hooks (history, up
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64383.
rengolin added a comment.
Expand step 2 to make sure we don't forget about the safety hooks on each
project as well as the webhook to update the umbrella project. This could turn
out to be a buildbot, but makes no difference at this stage.
https://
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:208
@@ +207,3 @@
+3. Make sure we have an llvm-project (with submodules) setup in the official
+ account, with all necessary hooks (history, update, merges).
+4. Make sure bisecting with llvm-project works.
--
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:200
@@ +199,3 @@
+
+Here's a proposed plan:
+
You can click on the "<<" button and it will show where it was first inserted.
That's how I found out. :)
The hooks, AFAICS, will be added to the
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64373.
rengolin added a comment.
Removing "broken" to describe the history, just explaining it'll be local.
Expanding to mention that hooks will need to be implemented in step 3.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: d
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:198
@@ +197,3 @@
+3. Make sure we have an llvm-project (with submodules) setup in the official
+ account.
+4. Make sure bisecting with llvm-project works.
mehdi_amini wrote:
> Uh, this point i
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64371.
rengolin added a comment.
Second round of suggestions applied.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:8-9
@@ +7,4 @@
+
+This is a proposal to move our current revision control system from Subversion
+to GitHub. Below are the financial and technical arguments as to why we need
+such a move and how will people (an
emaste added a subscriber: emaste.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:8-9
@@ +7,4 @@
+
+This is a proposal to move our current revision control system from Subversion
+to GitHub. Below are the financial and technical arguments as to why we need
+such a move and how will people
filcab added a subscriber: filcab.
filcab added a comment.
What about branches? I'm guessing we should expect the usual release branches.
But will any person be able to create a branch? Will there be a policy, if this
is the case? Is the policy enforceable?
Comment at: docs/Pr
rengolin removed rL LLVM as the repository for this revision.
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64334.
rengolin added a comment.
First round of changes reflecting reviews.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
=
compnerd added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:167
@@ +166,3 @@
+with the limited number of developers whose job will be to mainly merge
+thousands of patches a day.
+
rengolin wrote:
> compnerd wrote:
> > I don't fully understand how this i
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:129
@@ +128,3 @@
+* The linear history can still be accessed in the (RO) submodule meta project,
+ Which will continue to have SVN access.
+
compnerd wrote:
> "Which will continue to have SVN a
50 matches
Mail list logo
