[llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories?
C Bergström via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jul 21 10:03:20 PDT 2016
Monolithic is trying to solve the wrong problem - it's that simple.
Any discussion or attempt to coddle those who think it's necessary is
a waste of time. #dictator
As part of any potential migration, everyone involved must start to
accept certain changes, (large or small) to the workflow. The big
challenge here isn't technical, it's mindset. It's convincing any
group of people who object that it won't be as painful to them as they
think. (I hope this is a true statement)
#if - there's a group of people are : dogmatic, stubborn and
unreasonable - others outside that group should decide how to deal
with them: ignore, coddle, placate or other.
I don't think there's a perfect technical solution to make everyone
happy - I think focusing on the social engineering will be an equal or
greater importance. (herding cats)
With the survey - I guess you could include some level of objection
like - strongly against and over my dead body type reactions are
probably the most to be cautious about. Anyone surveyed who fall in
the middle or slightly left/right can be seen as "flexible". If it
turns out that they survey shows only 1-5 people with extreme views
and 100 people with moderate or flexible views - those are hard
numbers. From there decisions can be made and long unending threads
like this can die - so we can all get back to reading more important
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Which projects do we put under this monolithic repository?
> SVN has about 42 projects, some of them dead, some of them in life support.
> So far, being "an upstream repository" meant being inside the LLVM SVN
> server. We'll change that to "being inside the monolithic LLVM
> repository". But this can become huge, and not all projects "ink" back
> to LLVM.
> An alternative would be to just have some core projects in the
> monolithic and everything else as separate, but then what's core?
> As a back-of-the-envelope, I suggest: llvm, clang, clang-tools-extra,
> compiler-rt, libc++, libc++abi, libunwind, test-suite.
> I'm thinking LLD and LLDB could remain out, but I don't think it would
> be too weird for them to be in...
> Anything else? Less?
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
More information about the llvm-dev