[llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories?
Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jul 25 11:34:18 PDT 2016
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM Justin Lebar via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> FWIW my answers to these are:
> 1) Yes to unified history. The main advantage of non-unified history
> is that it's easier for people to import old branches -- it's a matter
> of "git merge" instead of running the git filter-branch script I
> wrote. But this is a relatively small (~20 minute) one-time cost to
> some of us, whereas our repository history is born by all of us
> forever. Moreover unified history also helps people with long-running
> branches, as it lets them check out old versions of their branch and
> get a compatible version of all of the other llvm subprojects.
I strongly agree about this.
> 2) Yes to nested layout. I find Chandler and Richard Smith's
> arguments compelling.
I think it is important to note what Richard pointed out: *we will almost
certainly restructure the tree to make more sense in a monorepo*.
I think the result is actually very likely to look much more flat than the
current layout, and to also be significantly superior to any of the current
I just don't want people to think this locks us into a particular nested
layout for all time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev