<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:20 AM Philip Reames via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 6/30/20 2:07 PM, Chris Lattner via
llvm-dev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Jun 30, 2020, at 2:02 PM, Duncan Exon Smith
<<a href="mailto:dexonsmith@apple.com" target="_blank">dexonsmith@apple.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><br>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 2020-Jun-30, at 13:28, Chris Lattner
via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Jun 29, 2020, at 10:15 PM,
Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">IMO, a pull
request isn't as clear given that they
haven't been used for contributions before.
This is not a time to be innovative IMO. A
branch as a staging location has been used
many times over the history of the project
though and seems nicely unambiguous in that
regard.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>I don’t have a opinion on this either
way, but can git/GitHub maintain forks within the
same organization? You could have
llvm/llvm-project and
llvm/llvm-project-apple-staging or something like
that?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't think GitHub allows you fork your
own repo so I think it would be disconnected from a
GitHub point of view. That has a few downsides,
although I'm not sure how important they are.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regardless, if a separate repo is
preferred, then a better name from our perspective
would be "llvm-project-staging" (dropping the "-apple"
suffix). We could push a "staging/apple" branch there.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Ok, I’m not very concerned either way, it was just a thought.
I’m very happy to see this upstreaming work happen, thanks!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Chris</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I have a mild preference for the separate llvm-project-staging
approach, but am not opposed to an in tree branch either. The
main argument I see for the separate repo is that the bar can be
lower because the consequences for being "wrong" about the code
being fully merged quickly are lower.</p>
<p>Or another thought, maybe we should even use the incubator flow
here? Nothing says an incubator has to be long lived. If we spun
up an "incubator-staging-apple" repo, wouldn't that demonstrate
the same benefits?</p></div></blockquote><div>I am not convinced the "incubator" proposal is suited for this purpose as this is not about a new project but about a patch on top of LLVM itself. My understanding of the incubator is to build new project/subprojects, but not to diverge from LLVM itself (if it isn't clear in the current proposal we should discuss it and clarify it, either way we end-up).</div><div><br></div><div>-- </div><div>Mehdi</div><div><br></div></div></div>