[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] GitHub anyone?

Thu Jun 2 11:42:17 PDT 2016

> they would have to come with a technical justification. Just claiming "it is unreliable" does not make it a reality.

Of course I don't expect anyone to accept a claim because I say so. The relative merits of Git and SVN have been widely discussed for years and most interested parties have already formed an opinion. I am merely casting a vote based on mine.

skw

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 2, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jun 2, 2016, at 9:28 AM, Scott Warren via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> My two cents worth: our group tries very hard to avoid Git because we find it immature, hard to use, and unreliable.
> 
> I'm willing to take such claims into account, but they would have to come with a technical justification. Just claiming "it is unreliable" does not make it a reality.
> 
> -- 
> Mehdi
> 
> 
> 
>> I know others feel differently but our vote is to stay with SVN. If distributed repositories are a priority we’d be much happier with Mercurial.
>> 
>> skw
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 2, 2016, at 11:21 AM, Tanya Lattner via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I personally find this email thread very hard to follow and read (this isn’t anyones fault.. its just a lot of replies). I am sure others do as well. I think it would be good to have a form/survey of some sort that can get feedback from users such as: who they are, how they use LLVM/contributions/etc,  if they are pro-github move, how it impacts them, etc. People could then submit their feedback in an organized way and we could get a better idea of how the community feels on the topic. 
>>> 
>>> I am happy to try to set something like this up.
>>> 
>>> -Tanya
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 2, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> A little summary...
>>>> 
>>>> After a lot of discussion, I think we converged to a few issues that
>>>> we need to solved before we finally decide to move.
>>>> 
>>>> Firstly, the responses were overwhelmingly positive (I counted 20 of
>>>> the ~25 people strongly supporting and another 2~3 weakly supporting).
>>>> This is a good indication that the move could be very beneficial to
>>>> the community as a whole, including downstream infrastructure, not
>>>> just the reduction in upstream infrastructure admin costs.
>>>> 
>>>> But that doesn't mean we have cleared up all the issues...
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The benefits I gathered from the thread:
>>>> 
>>>> * Infrastructure admin (not just server costs) is too expensive.
>>>> We're not sysadmins and maintaining all the tools is a full time job.
>>>> Volunteering works for odd problems, not for production services.
>>>> Furthermore, most of the infrastructure we need is covered by
>>>> GitHub/Lab/BB for free, on a scale that we would not have, even with a
>>>> full time sysadmin. Gratis.
>>>> 
>>>> * Having one official repository instead of two is beneficial to most
>>>> developers. A lot of people (most people replying on this thread), use
>>>> Git in addition to SVN. Git also seems to be used more on validation
>>>> infrastructure than SVN (no example was put forward on this thread, at
>>>> least), due to the simplicity of controlling the repository and the
>>>> tools available. Reports of how teams decided to script Git to have
>>>> linear behaviour instead of falling back to SVN are enlightening.
>>>> 
>>>> * Git developer tooling is a growing trend, while SVN tooling is
>>>> dying. This is not just about GUIs, but repository management (GitHub,
>>>> GitLab, BitBucket, etc versus SourceForge), bisects, branches,
>>>> remotes, hooks, workdir, submodules and all the new development seem
>>>> to be done on Git nowadays, not SVN. Windows may be an odd one related
>>>> to GUIs, but Visual Studio has Git integration and I hear it's similar
>>>> to the other MSVC VCSs. GitHub's desktop interface seems pretty cool,
>>>> too.
>>>> 
>>>> * Web repositories make it *a lot* easier to create add-hoc pull
>>>> requests by non-developers, which could boost the number of
>>>> contributions and future contributors, as well as external projects
>>>> using LLVM components.
>>>> 
>>>> * GitHub's SVN RW interface has been reported to work well for
>>>> simpler projects, but we need a more thorough examination before
>>>> declare it good enough for our purposes.
>>>> 
>>>> * All reports on the thread pointed that downstream infrastructure is
>>>> already using Git, so that's one less problem to worry about if we do
>>>> move.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The issues that were raised:
>>>> 
>>>> * Co-dependent patches already break buildbots, but the sequential ID
>>>> helps us identify and ignore. They will continue to break, even if we
>>>> use git sub-modules, so that doesn't change much, but it will be
>>>> harder to spot the issue. Server side hooks may help, as well as
>>>> sub-modules.
>>>> 
>>>> * Windows tooling may be an issue. There's a separate thread handling
>>>> that part, so I won't cover it here. But I have to say it wasn't by a
>>>> long shot a resonant problem. It may also have some problem with
>>>> symlinks and in-tree checkouts (when interacting with llvm-projects
>>>> and sub-modules).
>>>> 
>>>> * Sub-modules may help with a lot of the current relationship we have
>>>> inside the SVN repo, but it also has some problems. Namely they:
>>>> - require a modern version of git (1.7/1.9), but that's 2013 onward.
>>>> - may need additional server side scripting, but we can keep that
>>>> in another repo to control it.
>>>> - won't replace SVN's monotonic IDs, but do we *really* need them?
>>>> Sub-modules have a bad fame, I gather, but people in the thread
>>>> reported success on using it to build validation and release
>>>> infrastructure as well as doing bisects, checking out code, etc. We
>>>> probably need some documentation on how to do these things, as well as
>>>> some scripts to help people work out the dependencies (or use them).
>>>> 
>>>> * GitHub/Lab/BB are not perfect. They have some interface issues, but
>>>> nothing more serious than we already have on our current
>>>> infrastructure. We'll probably have to keep Bugzilla (as GitHub's own
>>>> is really poor), but we can replace all our repos (SVN, Git),
>>>> visualisation tools (ViewVC, Klaus) and Phabricator.
>>>> 
>>>> Of all those issues, Windows tooling is a minor problem that shouldn't
>>>> impact decision that much and sub-modules need a lot of ironing out to
>>>> be considered good enough. My *personal* take away is that sub-modules
>>>> (or an alternative server side solution) is the only strong technical
>>>> issue we need to solve before we decide.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> How does a move look like?
>>>> 
>>>> If we decide to move, the proposed schedule is something like this:
>>>> 
>>>> STEP #1 : Pre Move
>>>> 
>>>> 0. Update docs to mention the move, so people are aware the it's going on.
>>>> 1. Register an official GitHub project with the LLVM foundation.
>>>> 2. Setup another (read-only) mirror of llvm.org/git at this GitHub project
>>>> 3. Make sure we have a la llvm-project-submodules setup in the
>>>> official account. (Optional or necessary for the buildbots?)
>>>> 4. Make sure bisecting with llvm-project-submodules is a good experience
>>>> 5. Make sure no one has any blocker
>>>> 
>>>> STEP #2 : Git Move
>>>> 
>>>> 6. Update the buildbots to pick up updates and commits from the
>>>> official git repository
>>>> 7. Update Phabricator to pick up commits from the official git repository
>>>> 8. Tell people living downstream to pick up commits from the official
>>>> git repository
>>>> 9. Give things time to settle. We could play some games like disabling
>>>> the svn repository for a few hours on purpose so that people can test
>>>> that their infrastructure has really become independent of the svn
>>>> repository.
>>>> 
>>>> ... Until this point nothing has changed for developers, it will just
>>>> boil down to a lot of work for buildbot and other infrastructure
>>>> owners ...
>>>> 
>>>> STEP #3: Write Access Move
>>>> 
>>>> 10. Collect peoples GitHub account information, give them push access.
>>>> Ideally while still locking the GitHub repository somehow...
>>>> 11. Switch SVN repository to read-only and allow pushes to the GitHub
>>>> repository.
>>>> 12. Mirror Git to SVN.
>>>> 
>>>> STEP #4 : Post Move
>>>> 
>>>> 13. Archive the SVN repository, if GitHub's SVN is good enough.
>>>> 14. Review and update *all* LLVM documentation.
>>>> 15. Review website links pointing to viewvc/klaus/phab etc. to point
>>>> to GitHub instead.
>>>> 
>>>> This is an adapted version of Matthias' and Mehdi's proposal, and it's
>>>> not a final version in any way, but these are the basic things we need
>>>> to worry about.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Steps from here...
>>>> 
>>>> Aaron has started the Windows tooling thread, and if you have any
>>>> comments, please follow from there. I suggest sub-modules supporters
>>>> to start another thread to iron that out separately.
>>>> 
>>>> Once those issues are resolved, we shall start another thread to
>>>> finally take a decision to move or not.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks everyone!
>>>> 
>>>> cheers,
>>>> --renato
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160602/7c47e249/attachment.html>