[llvm-dev] RFC: Move the test-suite LLVM project to GitHub?

Matthias Braun via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Feb 25 11:51:48 PST 2016

> On Feb 25, 2016, at 4:05 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 25 February 2016 at 11:54, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>> GitHub offers  a simple *raw* git hosting. All the fork&pull-request is sugar in the web interface. You don't *have to* use it.
> I mentioned this below. I was referring how GitHub *expects* to be used.
I'd vote to change one thing at a time and not start switching to a full "github-style" model for now. We can continue in the current style on github as well.(Though as a side note, I don't think we are far away from the github model as phabricator revisions feel pretty similar to pull requests).

>> This is why git has "hooks": for example https://gist.github.com/stefansundin/d465f1e331fc5c632088
>> You can prevent from rewriting the history on the server side, which eliminate risk of "accidents". (You can have a whitelist of people allowed to rewrite the history...).
> Right, this solves most of the problems.
So far my experience has been that git is no worse (and often slightly better) in terms of reliability than svn.

>> Not sure how this part relates to git/github/svn?
> It relates to having a separate repository. The administration cost of
> adding new committers, tags, branches is linearly proportional to the
> number of repositories, with the addition complexity of them being
> decoupled.
> Specifically for the releases, we need to make sure that the commit on
> the test-suite that gets tagged for a release is the one supposed to
> be, not just the tip of the tree. If we allow non-linear history, this
> gets more complex.
> Luckily, the test-suite is low traffic enough that this won't be a
> problem often.
That is an interesting point, will Chris start adding people to github as well?

- Matthias

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list