[llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories?
Renato Golin via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jul 20 23:12:41 PDT 2016
On 21 July 2016 at 03:08, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote:
> And, then, suddenly, in the last day or so, a bunch of support seems to have
> shown up for the one-repo solution. Way more than I'd ever expected for
> sure. Even from people I had thought were super-opposed to it turned out not
> to be!
> I'm also really sad to hear that people have been impugning your motives,
> because you've done a tremendous amount of work to bring this to a
> conclusion, and it really ought to be clear to everyone that you've been
> doing an admirable job of driving towards consensus here, and basically
> nothing more.
Thank you. Appreciated.
> IMO, the only reason we can even have this conversation about a single-repo
> reasonably now is because of your work in writing up clearly the scheme for
> a multi-repo solution. So I hope you don't feel discouraged by this turn of
> events! I personally put the entire credit of getting to this point on your
> hard work.
Haven't though of it that way. I feel better already. :)
> I don't much care which of those is chosen. I have a slight preference for
> #1, for ease of doing things like grep/log/etc on llvm by itself, excluding
> all the other projects. But either way seems probably fine, and an
> improvement over multiple repositories.
I don't have a strong preference, but #1 proponents weakly convinced
me with two arguments:
1. it is easier to mix-and-match repositories as you like
I'd still symlink as I do today, but I can see why this would be
interesting for off-tree users.
2. it "makes more sense" to let Clang *use* LLVM instead of LLVM *host* Clang
this seems more preference than anything, but people that know CMake
more than I do said it would be "easier" and I trust them. I have no
technical arguments pro or against.
Though, I'd be fine with anything really.
More information about the llvm-dev