On 30 June 2016 at 16:23, Frédéric Riss wrote:
>> The only thing we *have* to have a sequential number for, are
>> releases. Even that can be ran manually.
>
> LNT and ‘llvmlab bisect’ also currently rely heavily on having sequential
> numbers as commit identifiers.
One of the steps of the migra
> On Jun 30, 2016, at 1:26 AM, Renato Golin via cfe-dev
> wrote:
>
> On 30 June 2016 at 05:14, Tim Northover wrote:
>>> That makes it fragile, and that’s why I disagree with your “90% done”
>>> assessment.
>>> What if the service behing the hook is down for a few days?
>>
>> In the long-term
On 28 June 2016 at 17:33, Tim Northover wrote:
> I really like this too, and think Takumi has basically solved 90% of
> the problem for us already. We may want to add an "rN" line to avoid
> scaring people with hex commits, but that seems to be all that's
> lacking and not really essential anyway.
On 27 June 2016 at 22:55, NAKAMURA Takumi via cfe-dev
wrote:
> It has also submodules.
> https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project-submodule
>
> Both llvm-project(-tree) and (-submodule) have refs/notes/commits.
I really like this too, and think Takumi has basically solved 90% of
the problem f
Two problems:
1) Submodules have some UX problems for developers around updating the
parent project and its effects on the submodule which make them annoying to
use.
2) I find the advantage you claim especially scary and bad. Put another
way: if a developer *doesn't* make a commit to clang with the
