[llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories?
Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jul 20 19:06:52 PDT 2016
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> On 21 July 2016 at 02:06, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
> >> Checking out all of it is bad,
> > Define bad?
> > Time?
> > Disk space?
> > Bandwidth?
> > I mean, we already assume you have a lot of each anyway?
> This is not about me, it's about people that use LLVM projects elsewhere.
> >> but having them officially interlinked, it seems, is worse.
> > Why?
> > Below it sounds like you want to do this as a way of enforcing projects
> > stay independent of each other.
> Why every one take my comments as my own personal motives
I don't, but i can see how others might
> I'm just the "consensus seeker". None of these ideas are mine, I'm
> just echoing what was said in 320 emails, plus what was said in the
> past few years when people discussed about using pure Git.
So, if you want to raise the concerns of others, you really need to be a
bit more detailed about who and what.
Otherwise it honestly just comes off as "vague objection".
Even a minimum of "if you look at what X said about Y in the thread", or
something, would go a long way here.
Otherwise you are basically saying "hey, i think i heard, in the past 300
emails, X". That's not really something that one can respond to reasonably.
> People in the IRC were saying I had ulterior motives, that I was
> pushing people to use GitHub or sub-modules, or whatever. This is
> *really* not cool.
That is definitely not cool. I don't think you do. I converted GCC from CVS
to SVN, so i know how this feels, believe me :)
> Every single thread so far has died down and I wrote a summary, and no
> one said anything. Then I created another thread, and wrote another
> summary. Once no one was disagreeing, I wrote the text.
> Now every one wants to disagree again. Seriously?
FWIW: I actually think the LLVM community ratholes on a lot of things, *way
too much*. Not sure we are quite at that point yet on this.
> I *personally* don't care if we use GitHub, or GitLab, Git or
> mercurial. I don't care if we have sub-modules or a monolithic
> repository, but I'm not the only user.
> LLVM has, so far, taken the modular approach that other projects can
> embed our projects on their products. Downstream commercial products
> do that, other OSS projects do that, and that's pretty cool.
> GCC has had a *huge* flying monster in the last decade because they
> weren't modular enough and that has been the big difference of LLVM,
> and why it gained traction on impossible partners, like Emacs.
Errr, i'm not sure this is really the reason, but let's ignore that :)
> If we're saying we want to close everything down and make a compiler
> like GCC, that will make my life **MUCH** easier.
I don't think anyone has said that. I simply pointed out having a
monolithic repo or not should be 100% orthogonal to that.
> So there is
> absolutely *no* point in me pushing the other way.
> But I'm not the only user... And I'd rather not be selfish.
> If the consensus has changed from last week, or if no one has actually
> read the emails and threads and want to do it all over again, please
> be my guest.
I think you may need to move a *little* slower, FWIW. On one hand you are
saying "there are 300+ emails", but you expect consensus in a week?
That seems .. a bit much :)
What if someone was on vacation last week?
I read literally every email in that thread. I guess i don't see all the
concerns being raised you do? I see like one or two emails that could be
taken as concerns.
So like I said, if you are going to seek consensus and drive it by voicing
the concerns of others, that's great. I applaud it. But when doing it, you
may want to make clear that is what you are doing, and who said what, so
that the right people can be cc'd with the right responses, etc
Otherwise i'm not sure it's as helpful as one might think. (i could be
wrong of course)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev