[llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories?

Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jul 20 17:06:26 PDT 2016

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:02 PM Justin Bogner via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Justin Lebar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> > I would like to (re-)open a discussion on the following specific
> question:
> >
> >   Assuming we are moving the llvm project to git, should we
> >   a) use multiple git repositories, linked together as subrepositories
> > of an umbrella repo, or
> >   b) use a single git repository for most llvm subprojects.
> >
> > The current proposal assembled by Renato follows option (a), but I
> > think option (b) will be significantly simpler and more effective.
> > Moreover, I think the issues raised with option (b) are either
> > incorrect or can be reasonably addressed.
> >
> > Specifically, my proposal is that all LLVM subprojects that are
> > "version-locked" (and/or use the common CMake build system) live in a
> > single git repository.  That probably means all of the main llvm
> > subprojects other than the test-suite and maybe libc++.  From looking
> > at the repository today that would be: llvm, clang, clang-tools-extra,
> > lld, polly, lldb, llgo, compiler-rt, openmp, and parallel-libs.
> FWIW, I'm opposed. I'm not convinced that the problems with multiple
> repos are any worse than the problems with a single repo, which makes
> this more or less just change for the sake of change, IMO.

It would be useful to know what problems you see with a single repo that
are more significant. In particular, either why you think the problems
jlebar already mentioned are worse than he sees them, or what other
problems are that he hasn't addressed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160721/1f54f3ae/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list