[llvm-dev] RFC: Deleting git-svn folder (git-llvm, git-svnrevert, git-svnup)
Eric Christopher via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue May 12 15:47:32 PDT 2020
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:25 PM Johannes Doerfert <
> johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For some reason this thread seems to be gone in a wrong direction. I'm
>> sorry for that.
>>
>
> All good (:
>
>
>> The discussion on the RFC asked for a reason to keep the script, I think
>> we heard reasons to do so (due to branches).
>>
>
> Yeah, it seems harmless enough to keep git-llvm if some folks find it
> useful. I don't object.
>
>
>> Now, I was unable to determine if the `git llvm` scripts was removed
>> "just as part of the bunch" or if we expect a problem with the script.
>
>
>> If it is the former, are there reasons against adding it back?
>>
>
> I think it was intentionally removed, as I mentioned - there was a
> discussion about adding features to it, and a general consensus that it
> didn't have mainstream usage/adding features wouldn't get a lot of traction
> (chicken & egg problem, to be sure - don't get users without features,
> can't justify features without users) - but, yes, if a few folks are still
> finding value in the scripts I don't mind them sticking around, I think
> they're pretty harmless.
>
> Re, Eric's:
>
> "I think the only reason is whether or not we want to encourage anything
> as part of them or whether we want "llvm specific" commit
> advice/instructions/etc where we want people to use these for sure.
> That said, git isn't the most command line friendly of VCSs for me so if
> we want to have something that makes things just a little easier I'm down,
> but would like to see what we expect them to do documented (here?) and ...
> documented (on the web page)."
>
> I don't mind too much, really - they've been useful for some folks so far,
> I don't think adding them back in should necessarily involve a higher bar
> than their existence/original introduction did previously (& like the
> git-svn tools - some folks used them, some didn't, etc) and I'd probably
> have somewhat more significant feelings about not wanting to encourage
> their use further (for the same chicken-and-egg-y reasons) in formal "how
> to work with LLVM" documentation, but if it's documented amongst other
> tools rather than promoted as a "here's how to work with llvm" I wouldn't
> have any objection. (& if people want to encourage this as the canonical
> way to do LLVM, I think that discussion's certainly something that could be
> had - I'm just expressing my personal opinion about that direction)
>
>
Sounds good to me. As I was telling Johannes: "My input in VCSs discussions
should be taken with a very large grain of salt". I just want it to be
straightforward and reduce possible areas of issues :)
-eric
> - Dave
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Johannes
>>
>>
>> On 5/12/20 5:13 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:56 PM Johannes Doerfert <
>> > johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> TBH, all I initially asked for, still ask for, is a reason why `git
>> >> llvm` was being removed.
>> >
>> > Fair enough - and 24 hours later no one had replied to your inquiry - I
>> > don't think that's a huge deal, to be honest - I've certainly had to
>> > follow-up with higher email latencies than that pretty regularly. Eric
>> had
>> > replied to someone else's question pretty reasonably "what do I use
>> > instead?" "git push" (what most people have been using since the
>> transition)
>> >> Your email was the only one that hinted on a
>> >> reason.
>> >>
>> > I think the original proposal & response covered that - they seem(ed)
>> like
>> > dead code ("My understanding of these tools is that they were useful for
>> > when we were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the
>> migration is
>> > complete, they can be deleted as they are either unnecessary or there
>> are
>> > other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push --> git push).") -
>> > some folks agreed, and time was given in case anyone had use cases they
>> > wanted to bring up & didn't.
>> >
>>
>> >> (more below)
>> >>
>> >> On 5/12/20 4:00 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:50 PM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev <
>> >> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> @Zola, Eric,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I really feel the communication and reasoning here is problematic.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> From my perspective, you removed stuff "we don't need", ignoring
>> >> whether
>> >> >> it is used, and then let people figure out how to deal with the
>> result.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What I most dislike about the process most is how questions and
>> >> concerns
>> >> >> are then ignored or played down.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Honestly, I think Zola did more than I'd have expected to be done
>> for
>> >> this
>> >> > - sending out the proposal (to llvm-dev, not just llvm-commits,
>> even) &
>> >> > waiting a week for feedback.
>> >>
>> >> Sure. That is why I did not mention the process that lead to the
>> situation.
>> >> I think my email/questions are well in line with post-commit review
>> >> standards but people seem to disagree.
>> >>
>> > I don't think your first email was unreasonable/not sure anyone's
>> saying it
>> > was unreasonable?
>> >
>> >
>> >>> Suggesting that LLVM developers (the, apparently rather small (based
>> on
>> >> > feedback from before/after this change) number of them) migrate to
>> the
>> >> > standard git functionality for contributing to git projects seems
>> >> like it's
>> >> > in line with discussions I recall seeing before and after the git
>> >> migration
>> >> > - that the git-llvm scripts were migration tools (there was some
>> >> discussion
>> >> > about whether they might be used for more post-migration, to
>> enforce
>> >> > certain constraints, etc - but those ideas were not accepted/moved
>> >> forward
>> >> > with).
>> >>
>> >> I recall no decision being made back in October 2019 and that we will
>> >> see how it goes. Till now I thought it went fine, or at least I haven't
>> >> understood what needed fixing.
>> >>
>> > I think the migration went fine, yes - but these scripts seem to me
>> like a
>> > vestige of the hybrid situation & no longer needed/especially
>> beneficial.
>> >
>> >
>> >>> I have some concern about adding these scripts back in as they may
>> >> lead to
>> >> > greater divergence in developer experience and/or become less
>> >> relevant over
>> >> > time and a weird thing for newcomers to stumble over, perhaps. But
>> I
>> >> don't
>> >> > feel /that/ strongly, if other folks particularly prefer using
>> them,
>> >> they
>> >> > seem mostly harmless.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think I understand your concerns. Could you elaborate what
>> >> divergence you can see in the future? FWIW, if the scripts are broken
>> >> and people stumble over them it means no one takes care of them and
>> >> removal is adequate.
>> >>
>> > I'd generally prefer to remove things sooner rather than later,
>> personally.
>> > I believe some of the original motivation was an offline discussion
>> about
>> > adding more features (to trim unnecessary Phabricator fields, I
>> believe) to
>> > them & a response was that they're not really used/encouraged & so
>> adding
>> > features wouldn't be especially valuable - so the thought was to go the
>> > other way, rather than keeping them around, and building processes that
>> > might only work with the scripts & then being let down when those
>> processes
>> > aren't adhered to by most of the community (because they're not using
>> the
>> > scripts) it'd be better to remove them and standardize practices on the
>> > plain git tools.
>> >
>> > - Dave
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Johannes
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > - Dave
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Johannes
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 5/12/20 2:10 PM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> FWIW, if you do your development in git-branches, it is a little
>> >> more than that. IT ends up being:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> git push origin HEAD:master.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which is somewhat easy to mess up. For example, I inverted the
>> >> HEAD/master at one point and ended up creating a branch named “HEAD” at
>> >> one point.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Eric Christopher via
>> >> llvm-dev
>> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:59 AM
>> >> >> To: Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> <yamauchi at google.com>
>> >> >> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >> >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Deleting git-svn folder (git-llvm,
>> >> git-svnrevert, git-svnup)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just push :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, May 12, 2020, 8:46 AM Hiroshi Yamauchi
>> >> <yamauchi at google.com<mailto:yamauchi at google.com> <yamauchi at google.com
>> >>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> I was also using "git llvm push" to commit, sort of out of habit.
>> >> What's a recommended, alternative way to push?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:57 AM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I was actually using `git llvm` in my daily workflow.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Could you explain why we want people to move away from that
>> script?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In addition to the convenience, it prevented me from accidentally
>> >> creating a new branch (which I did before with push once).
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Johannes
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 5/11/20 11:43 AM, Zola Bridges via llvm-dev wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Deleted this morning. Thanks!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Zola Bridges
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:35 PM Eric Christopher <
>> echristo at gmail.com>
>> >> <echristo at gmail.com><mailto:echristo at gmail.com> <echristo at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Giving at least one explicit:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sounds good to me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:01 PM Zola Bridges via llvm-dev <
>> >> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Here is a link to the patch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79348
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Zola Bridges
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:50 AM Zola Bridges <zbrid at google.com>
>> >> <zbrid at google.com><mailto:zbrid at google.com> <zbrid at google.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi everyone,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would like to delete this folder of svn to git migration tools.
>> >> >>
>> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/master/llvm/utils/git-svn
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My understanding of these tools is that they were useful for when
>> we
>> >> >>
>> >> >> were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the migration
>> is
>> >> >>
>> >> >> complete, they can be deleted as they are either unnecessary or
>> >> there are
>> >> >>
>> >> >> other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push --> git
>> push).
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - Is there any reason these scripts should continue to exist
>> that
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm not aware of?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - I'd like to delete these next Monday. Is that timeline
>> >> >>
>> >> >> unacceptable to anyone?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Zola Bridges
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>
>> >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>
>> >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> LLVM Developers mailing
>> >> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> LLVM Developers mailing
>> >> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://
>> >> lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> >> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200512/3bfdf32b/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list