[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] GitHub anyone?
Mehdi Amini via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue May 31 15:54:05 PDT 2016
> On May 31, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Mehdi
>> Amini via llvm-dev
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 2:38 PM
>> To: Bill Kelly
>> Cc: LLVM Dev; Clang Dev; LLDB Dev
>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] GitHub anyone?
>>
>>
>>> On May 31, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Bill Kelly via llvm-dev <llvm-
>> dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>> Personally, I’m hugely in favor of moving llvm’s source hosting to
>> github at
>>>> some point, despite the fact that I continue to dislike git as a tool
>> and
>>>> consider monotonicly increasing version numbers to be hugely
>> beneficial.
>>>
>>> For whatever it's worth, our projects define a `buildnum` git alias:
>>>
>>> alias.buildnum=!sh -c "git rev-list --all | wc -l"
>
> Or the cheaper "git rev-list --count --all" if your git is new enough.
> We do something like this as well.
>
>>>
>>> So from the shell:
>>>
>>> $ git buildnum
>>> 17475
>>>
>>> This number increases monotonically per commit.
>>
>> It does not work with branches though (we're not really planning to have
>> branches I believe),
>
> You can get a per-branch unique number with this tactic. On our local
> branches we use "rev-list origin/master.." which is the number of commits
> since branching from master, and that's enough for our local purposes.
>
>> but more importantly it won't handle cross-repository
>> versioning (how do you relate the number this command prints in the llvm
>> repo to the number it'll print in the clang repo?), which I believe is
>> something important considering our setup.
>
> Is it really that important? Or are we just used to the convenience?
I don't know how important it is. How would you bisect without this "convenience" for instance?
(There is nothing like "push date" in git)
--
Mehdi
> If the Clang build number is a tuple (cfe-number, llvm-number) instead
> of a single number, how horrible is that really? If you consider what
> an out-of-tree front end probably does, it's exactly the same thing.
>
> (I admit that locally we mush cfe+llvm into a single branch and do the
> rev-list count to get a single number. But that's more for our own
> convenience than anything else.)
> --paulr
>
>>
>> --
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Our build scripts make this number available in various #define forms.
>>>
>>> (We use a little extra scripting logic to also determine whether there
>>> are currently any unmerged or uncommitted changes, and add an annotation
>>> to the program version in that case, e.g. "9.3.17475 [unmerged]")
>>>
>>>
>>> It's all stupidly simple, but seems to work well enough for us.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
More information about the cfe-dev
mailing list