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

C Bergström via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jul 20 20:01:57 PDT 2016

Can this conversation be moved to a -projects or -infra or
-somewhere-else place.. pretty please. While I have my own opinions -
I don't think my feedback would be heard over the voices of loud
contributors - as such and probably being in the same bucket as many
others on this list, kindly resolve this issue in another channel of
communication - again please set this up and stop flooding a developer
list with -infra issues.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list