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

Sean Silva via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jul 20 19:41:19 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.

Just my experience, but having worked extensively with both, the single
integrated repository is *much* nicer.

-- Sean Silva

> _______________________________________________
> 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/ca4b2f67/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list