<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:25 PM Johannes Doerfert <<a href="mailto:johannesdoerfert@gmail.com">johannesdoerfert@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">For some reason this thread seems to be gone in a wrong direction. I'm <br>
sorry for that.<br></blockquote><div><br>All good (:</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
The discussion on the RFC asked for a reason to keep the script, I think <br>
we heard reasons to do so (due to branches).<br></blockquote><div><br>Yeah, it seems harmless enough to keep git-llvm if some folks find it useful. I don't object.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Now, I was unable to determine if the `git llvm` scripts was removed <br>
"just as part of the bunch" or if we expect a problem with the script. </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
If it is the former, are there reasons against adding it back?<br></blockquote><div><br>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.<br><br>Re, Eric's:<br><br>"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.<div>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)."<br><br>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)<br><br>- Dave</div><div><br></div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Johannes<br>
<br>
<br>
On 5/12/20 5:13 PM, David Blaikie wrote:<br>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:56 PM Johannes Doerfert <<br>
> <a href="mailto:johannesdoerfert@gmail.com" target="_blank">johannesdoerfert@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> TBH, all I initially asked for, still ask for, is a reason why `git<br>
>> llvm` was being removed.<br>
><br>
> Fair enough - and 24 hours later no one had replied to your inquiry - I<br>
> don't think that's a huge deal, to be honest - I've certainly had to<br>
> follow-up with higher email latencies than that pretty regularly. Eric had<br>
> replied to someone else's question pretty reasonably "what do I use<br>
> instead?" "git push" (what most people have been using since the transition)<br>
>> Your email was the only one that hinted on a<br>
>> reason.<br>
>><br>
> I think the original proposal & response covered that - they seem(ed) like<br>
> dead code ("My understanding of these tools is that they were useful for<br>
> when we were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the migration is<br>
> complete, they can be deleted as they are either unnecessary or there are<br>
> other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push --> git push).") -<br>
> some folks agreed, and time was given in case anyone had use cases they<br>
> wanted to bring up & didn't.<br>
><br>
<br>
>> (more below)<br>
>><br>
>> On 5/12/20 4:00 PM, David Blaikie wrote:<br>
>> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:50 PM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev <<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> >> @Zola, Eric,<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I really feel the communication and reasoning here is problematic.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> From my perspective, you removed stuff "we don't need", ignoring<br>
>> whether<br>
>> >> it is used, and then let people figure out how to deal with the result.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> What I most dislike about the process most is how questions and<br>
>> concerns<br>
>> >> are then ignored or played down.<br>
>> >><br>
>> > Honestly, I think Zola did more than I'd have expected to be done for<br>
>> this<br>
>> > - sending out the proposal (to llvm-dev, not just llvm-commits, even) &<br>
>> > waiting a week for feedback.<br>
>><br>
>> Sure. That is why I did not mention the process that lead to the situation.<br>
>> I think my email/questions are well in line with post-commit review<br>
>> standards but people seem to disagree.<br>
>><br>
> I don't think your first email was unreasonable/not sure anyone's saying it<br>
> was unreasonable?<br>
><br>
><br>
>>> Suggesting that LLVM developers (the, apparently rather small (based on<br>
>> > feedback from before/after this change) number of them) migrate to the<br>
>> > standard git functionality for contributing to git projects seems<br>
>> like it's<br>
>> > in line with discussions I recall seeing before and after the git<br>
>> migration<br>
>> > - that the git-llvm scripts were migration tools (there was some<br>
>> discussion<br>
>> > about whether they might be used for more post-migration, to enforce<br>
>> > certain constraints, etc - but those ideas were not accepted/moved<br>
>> forward<br>
>> > with).<br>
>><br>
>> I recall no decision being made back in October 2019 and that we will<br>
>> see how it goes. Till now I thought it went fine, or at least I haven't<br>
>> understood what needed fixing.<br>
>><br>
> I think the migration went fine, yes - but these scripts seem to me like a<br>
> vestige of the hybrid situation & no longer needed/especially beneficial.<br>
><br>
><br>
>>> I have some concern about adding these scripts back in as they may<br>
>> lead to<br>
>> > greater divergence in developer experience and/or become less<br>
>> relevant over<br>
>> > time and a weird thing for newcomers to stumble over, perhaps. But I<br>
>> don't<br>
>> > feel /that/ strongly, if other folks particularly prefer using them,<br>
>> they<br>
>> > seem mostly harmless.<br>
>><br>
>> I don't think I understand your concerns. Could you elaborate what<br>
>> divergence you can see in the future? FWIW, if the scripts are broken<br>
>> and people stumble over them it means no one takes care of them and<br>
>> removal is adequate.<br>
>><br>
> I'd generally prefer to remove things sooner rather than later, personally.<br>
> I believe some of the original motivation was an offline discussion about<br>
> adding more features (to trim unnecessary Phabricator fields, I believe) to<br>
> them & a response was that they're not really used/encouraged & so adding<br>
> features wouldn't be especially valuable - so the thought was to go the<br>
> other way, rather than keeping them around, and building processes that<br>
> might only work with the scripts & then being let down when those processes<br>
> aren't adhered to by most of the community (because they're not using the<br>
> scripts) it'd be better to remove them and standardize practices on the<br>
> plain git tools.<br>
><br>
> - Dave<br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>> Thanks,<br>
>> Johannes<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> > - Dave<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Thanks,<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Johannes<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On 5/12/20 2:10 PM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> FWIW, if you do your development in git-branches, it is a little<br>
>> more than that. IT ends up being:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> git push origin HEAD:master.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Which is somewhat easy to mess up. For example, I inverted the<br>
>> HEAD/master at one point and ended up creating a branch named “HEAD” at<br>
>> one point.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> From: llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
>> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org</a>> On Behalf Of Eric Christopher via<br>
>> llvm-dev<br>
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:59 AM<br>
>> >> To: Hiroshi Yamauchi <<a href="mailto:yamauchi@google.com" target="_blank">yamauchi@google.com</a>> <<a href="mailto:yamauchi@google.com" target="_blank">yamauchi@google.com</a>><br>
>> >> Cc: llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
>> >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Deleting git-svn folder (git-llvm,<br>
>> git-svnrevert, git-svnup)<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Just push :)<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Tue, May 12, 2020, 8:46 AM Hiroshi Yamauchi<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:yamauchi@google.com" target="_blank">yamauchi@google.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:yamauchi@google.com" target="_blank">yamauchi@google.com</a>> <<a href="mailto:yamauchi@google.com" target="_blank">yamauchi@google.com</a>>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>> >> I was also using "git llvm push" to commit, sort of out of habit.<br>
>> What's a recommended, alternative way to push?<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:57 AM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
>> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I was actually using `git llvm` in my daily workflow.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Could you explain why we want people to move away from that script?<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> In addition to the convenience, it prevented me from accidentally<br>
>> creating a new branch (which I did before with push once).<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Cheers,<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Johannes<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On 5/11/20 11:43 AM, Zola Bridges via llvm-dev wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Deleted this morning. Thanks!<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Zola Bridges<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:35 PM Eric Christopher <<a href="mailto:echristo@gmail.com" target="_blank">echristo@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> <<a href="mailto:echristo@gmail.com" target="_blank">echristo@gmail.com</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:echristo@gmail.com" target="_blank">echristo@gmail.com</a>> <<a href="mailto:echristo@gmail.com" target="_blank">echristo@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Giving at least one explicit:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Sounds good to me.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:01 PM Zola Bridges via llvm-dev <<br>
>> >> <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
>> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Here is a link to the patch: <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D79348" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/D79348</a><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Zola Bridges<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:50 AM Zola Bridges <<a href="mailto:zbrid@google.com" target="_blank">zbrid@google.com</a>><br>
>> <<a href="mailto:zbrid@google.com" target="_blank">zbrid@google.com</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:zbrid@google.com" target="_blank">zbrid@google.com</a>> <<a href="mailto:zbrid@google.com" target="_blank">zbrid@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Hi everyone,<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I would like to delete this folder of svn to git migration tools.<br>
>> >> <a href="https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/master/llvm/utils/git-svn" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/master/llvm/utils/git-svn</a><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> My understanding of these tools is that they were useful for when we<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the migration is<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> complete, they can be deleted as they are either unnecessary or<br>
>> there are<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push --> git push).<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> - Is there any reason these scripts should continue to exist that<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I'm not aware of?<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> - I'd like to delete these next Monday. Is that timeline<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> unacceptable to anyone?<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Thanks,<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Zola Bridges<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
>> >> <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
>> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
>> >> <a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
>> >> <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
>> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
>> >> <a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
>> >> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> LLVM Developers mailing<br>
>> <a href="mailto:listllvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">listllvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
>> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> LLVM Developers mailing<br>
>> listllvm-dev@lists.llvm.orghttps://<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
>> >> <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
>> >> <a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>><br>
</blockquote></div></div>