[llvm-dev] Switching to git (Windows experience) (was re:[cfe-dev] GitHub anyone?)
George Rimar via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jun 3 05:31:59 PDT 2016
>On 3 June 2016 at 10:03, George Rimar via llvm-dev
><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> +1. I am also bit concerned here. Never used git, but it is fine, I am ready to learn,
>> but now when I am using TortoiseSVN the only command line I am using is for creating the
>> final patch (though I think that is also available in GUI).
>> And what I heard in this threads that almost all using only command line for working with git. That
>> is really different workflow approach.
>This is not true. There are a lot of GUIs for git, even more so than
>for SVN. If an outdated tool like TortoiseSVN is enough for LLVM's
>purposes, I'm sure there will be some Git GUI that will be good
I hope so. At this moment I see that TortoiseSVN is like a standart,
and looks like there is no standart GUI for git, what makes me think about possible
troubles people can face because of low quality of such tools.
Possible low quality I mean, I did not try to use any yet, so I have nothing
more that conserns here.
>I am reading a few people using TortoiseSVN afraid of the change. I
>understand the feeling, but now we're looking for technical arguments,
>not personal ones. So, what I recommend is for people to try out other
>GUIs on LLVM's Git and see how it goes.
>I'm also not asking anyone to move to a console based approach, nor
>I've seen anyone doing that. What people did was to show their
>workflow, which most of it happens to be on the console. And, since
>GUIs are just wrappers to command-line tools, if it is possible on the
>command-line, it's possible that some GUI tool will be able to do it.
>And the reverse is also true, if we can't do it on console, GUIs won't
>do it either, and we can't move to Git only.
>That's all there is to it.
>> I guess people here can be divided on those who using/used both svn and git and
>> familar with both. Or a minor part, but still some group that are familar with svn only.
>Why do you assume that everyone should be familiar with SVN?
>Using Git-SVN doesn't automatically make someone familiar with SVN, as
>much as using GitHub doesn't make you familiar with Git. You can use
>GitHub for years and have no idea how to do anything else in Git, and
>still be a perfectly good developer. That's the power of those tools.
Ok, what I wanted to say here that it is hard to discuss something with you're not familar.
Like for me to discuss git here. So if there is a discussion about moving to git, I assume that
people who involved should be familar with both when voting for something.
I think it is not ok to vote just because "I am using it and it is ok for me".
>> I think latter group just reads this thread and do not leave comments, just because unfamilar with git
>> enough to do that.
>I seriously encourage those people to step forward and try out Git
>tools, command-line and GUIs, as well as GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket, or
>anything else for that matter.
That probably worth to try. My concerns mostly about mandatory of that,
when looks it just possible that soon I`ll have no other choise.
>The workflow will change under Git, of course it will. But that
>doesn't mean you'll be unable to work or understand what you're doing.
>As a thought experiment, let's suppose we moved from SVN/Git to only
>SVN. Do you think the workflow would be identical to everybody else
>that uses Git-SVN?
>It's not because people use Git-SVN that they work like SVN. All Git
>users use Git-SVN because they work like Git, and only the final
>commit goes to SVN because *legacy*.
>> Tanya Lattner and Anton Korobeynikov wrote about some kind of survey that can bring on top
>> the real distribution of opinions, I think this idea was good, if that is a point of interest.
>They were actually being proactive in trying to understand how the
>final move decision would happen, not trying to force people to take
>decisions before all the technical issues are solved. These threads
>are not about personal opinions any more, they're about technical
>As I loosely collected from the previous (opinion) thread, there were
>about 80% of the people strongly in favour, with some 10% undecided
>and 10% against. If we were *only* to take those odds, the fairest
>thing to do would be to move unconditionally to Git.
That were people who was directly involved in this discussion. Probably there are lots
of other opinions. Probably not.
>But we can't ignore the technical details. All Git supporters are
>doing now, is to find a workflow that is sane under Git-only. If we
>can't find one, there's no point in moving. If we can, *then* we'll do
It sound like you're trying to find something that is not possible with svn just to justify
that git is a must. I hope I understood that wrong :)
>As someone said earlier, this is not about Git vs. SVN. It's about the
>current workflow vs. some future unknown one. Until we know what the
>future workflow looks like, I will personally not vote to move to
Anyways what I need to add that I am not familar with git and so all above just my conserns.
Hope that possible new workflow you're talking can will be OK for everyone.
More information about the llvm-dev