<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/30/20 2:07 PM, Chris Lattner via
      llvm-dev wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:7388BF2C-1246-4120-9676-CCD8FE428605@nondot.org">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <br class="">
      <div><br class="">
        <blockquote type="cite" class="">
          <div class="">On Jun 30, 2020, at 2:02 PM, Duncan Exon Smith
            <<a href="mailto:dexonsmith@apple.com" class=""
              moz-do-not-send="true">dexonsmith@apple.com</a>> wrote:</div>
          <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
          <div class="">
            <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
              charset=UTF-8" class="">
            <div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
              line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class="">
              <div class=""><br class="">
                <blockquote type="cite" class="">
                  <div class="">On 2020-Jun-30, at 13:28, Chris Lattner
                    via llvm-dev <<a
                      href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class=""
                      moz-do-not-send="true">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>
                    wrote:</div>
                  <div class="">
                    <div style="word-wrap: break-word;
                      -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break:
                      after-white-space;" class=""><br class="">
                      <div class="">
                        <blockquote type="cite" class="">
                          <div class="">On Jun 29, 2020, at 10:15 PM,
                            Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <<a
                              href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org"
                              class="" moz-do-not-send="true">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>
                            wrote:</div>
                        </blockquote>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <blockquote type="cite" class="">
                  <blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
                  </blockquote>
                </blockquote>
                <blockquote type="cite" class="">
                  <div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
                    space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
                    <div class="">
                      <blockquote type="cite" class="">
                        <div class="">
                          <div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
                            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;
                            -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
                            text-decoration: none;" class="">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 class="">
                    <div class="">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 class=""><br class="">
                </div>
                <div class="">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 class=""><br class="">
                </div>
                <div class="">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 class="">
      </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 class="">
      </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>
    <p>Philip<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>