[llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories?
Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jul 28 18:41:27 PDT 2016
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Lang Hames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Aaaand I'm (mostly) caught up. Phew.
> FWIW Chris B is right: I had been put off commenting on this thread by the length, and the number of git discussions that have come before this. He convinced me to make the effort to put my 2 cents in though - thanks Chris.
> So - for my use-case I don't have strong feelings one way or the other* <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpaQpyU_QiM>. That said, something about the discussion so far strikes me as dissonant: If we're going to break out some sub-projects (the test-suite for licensing reasons, the runtimes for modularity) then it's not really a mono-repo any more. It's a multi-repo where we've collapsed some (but not all) of the existing repos.
This a narrow view IMO: the criteria #1 Chris mentioned to include projects in the monorepo was " must be tightly coupled to specific versions”.
It means that even with the test suite (and possibly some runtime) out of the monorepo, all the software that is tightly coupled would be in the monorepo, and that alone would be enough to alleviate the needs for (most of the) tooling/infrastructure.
> To the extent that we have to build tooling to support multiple-repos (auto-mergers for test bots, command line utils for devs who want the main repo plus tests plus ...), could we re-use that to keep the existing modular project setup?
I find it a fairly different scale to clone 3 repos on a bot versus having to keep multiple repositories *in sync* (i.e. cross repository synchronization).
> This might be a fairly low-benefit proposition if the tools we develop were only usable by in-tree projects, but there are many other users of LLVM (Swift leaps to mind since I'm at Apple, but there are many others) who might appreciate the ability to use LLVM-provided tools to pick-and-mix LLVM projects into their repos. Otherwise, every downstream user will have to roll some version of these tools themselves.
Different problems, different tools… I’m against artificially creating “problems" for upstream developers only because the tooling to solve them works for downstream users.
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> On 28 July 2016 at 22:12, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com <mailto:beanz at apple.com>> wrote:
> > It is worth pointing out the Jenkins job that runs that is a playground I setup for myself. It is nowhere near production ready, and it will fail frequently as I iterate messing around with it.
> Sure, I think that's implied.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev