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

Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jul 20 18:06:54 PDT 2016

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On 21 July 2016 at 01:39, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote:
> > This is true if you s/checkout/clone/.  With a single repo, you must
> > clone (download) everything (*), but after you've done so you can use
> > sparse checkouts to check out (create a working copy of) only llvm and
> > clang.  So you should only notice the fact that there exist things
> > other than llvm and clang when you first clone (download) llvm.
> So, we use that to a certain extent.
> Linaro's GCC validation uses the full checkout, then do a shallow
> checkout that only has the updates.
> Our LLVM scripts, OTOH, clone all repos and use worktree for *all*
> branches, and we only branch on the repos that we choose, for each
> "working dir".
> Our scripts probably would need certain modifications... but it should be
> fine.
> But I'm not, by far, the most problematic user.
> The real problem, and why people accepted sub-modules, is that a lot
> of downstream people only use one or another projects. Mostly LLVM or
> Clang or libc++.
> Checking out all of it is bad,

Define bad?
Disk space?

I mean, we already assume you have a lot of each anyway?

but having them officially interlinked,
> it seems, is worse.

Below it sounds like you want to do this as a way of enforcing projects to
stay independent of each other.

I would posit that this is not the best way to do this?

> IIUC, the problem is that the projects are now
> built independently on their projects, but more and more CMake changes
> are creeping in, making it harder and harder to separate their
> projects from the rest of LLVM. This means they'll now depend on a
> much larger body of sources that will need to be compiled together,
> and will probably mean they'll abandon LLVM in favour of something
> lighter.
> I honestly don't know how big is that problem, I don't have it myself,
> but I "can imagine" compiling LLVM and Clang without need would be
> pretty bad.
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160720/76a7333a/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list