[lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook
Robinson, Paul via lldb-dev
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jun 30 12:25:47 PDT 2016
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Renato
> Golin via cfe-dev
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 9:49 AM
> To: Reid Kleckner
> Cc: LLVM Dev; llvm-foundation at lists.llvm.org; Clang Dev; LLDB Dev
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook
> 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
> > 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
> I'm all for using the umbrella if we can, I just though we couldn't... :(
> Can someone try the suggested tag style? Are we sure we can guarantee
> atomicity in there? I know SQL can. :)
> I know that changing the commit message works because of Gerrit and
> our current SVN integration, I don't know how much adding one tag for
> each push will work in Git over time.
We were using tags for a while in our own SVN->git conversion internally.
(git branch is pushed to SVN and the SVN r-number used to create a tag.)
They are convenient for some things, but each tag adds a new (if small)
file to .git/tags and I don't know that it really scales well when you
are talking about (long term) hundreds of thousands of them. That was
not what tags were designed for.
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.
I think having the number in the commit log (even if it's just for the
superproject) would be preferable. You can use 'git log --grep' to
find a particular rev if you need to.
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
More information about the lldb-dev