<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 24, 2016, at 1:31 PM, John Criswell via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/24/16 4:25 PM, Matthias Braun via
llvm-dev wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:6437D301-B4C3-48D9-B3BA-09A5E6D764B5@braunis.de" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=us-ascii" class="">
<div class="">I don't really care where the repository is located,
but I do have some comments on the future test-suite directions:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Feb 24, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Chandler Carruth
via llvm-dev <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Subject kinda says it all. Here is
my rationale:
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The test-suite is really weird relative to
the rest of the LLVM project:</div>
<div class="">1) It contains all manner of crazily
licensed code.<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="">That's indeed a good reason to move the repository away.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
I don't see that as a reason to move the repository. Where a
repository lives and what format it uses is an orthogonal issue to
what license the software within the repository is allowed to use.
There are policies on what licenses can be used for Clang and LLVM
code; the policy for the allowed licenses in test-suite is just
different.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:6437D301-B4C3-48D9-B3BA-09A5E6D764B5@braunis.de" type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">2) We don't really care about the history at
all. Any concerns around linear history or bisection are
pretty much irrelevant.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="">We do care about the history. Sometimes benchmarks get
fixed or tweaked which may change the results, we should be
able to dig into the history to see what happened when. In any
way retaining the history wouldn't be a problem, would it?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
I think Chandler's point (Chandler, please correct me if I'm wrong)
is that it's not important to a) match the test suite revision
numbers to LLVM source code revision numbers and b) copy the SVN
history to the Github repository.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div>Okay if this is about increasing subversion revision numbers. There is always data/time to related commits to each other. And I'd agree that matching a specific llvm/clang revision to a test-suite revision is not that useful. In fact I like the fact that you can mix and match different clang and test-suite revisions and not just have 1 giant checkout with clang/llvm + test-suite moving in sync.</div><div>As for history: The old subversion revision numbers are also still part of the commit descriptions anyway, so it is still possible to reconstruct things.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>- Matthias</div></div></body></html>