[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] GitHub Migration Schedule and Plans

Thu Oct 10 13:14:22 PDT 2019

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:29 PM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On 10/10/2019 11:40 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:59 AM Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com
> <mailto:tstellar at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 10/09/2019 11:05 PM, Mehdi AMINI wrote:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:16 PM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> <mailto:
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     Hi,
> >     >
> >     >     We're less than 2 weeks away from the developer meeting, so I
> wanted to
> >     >     give an update on the GitHub migration and what's (hopefully)
> going to
> >     >     happen during the developer meeting.
> >     >
> >     >     Everyone who has added their information to the
> github-usernames.txt
> >     >     file in SVN before today should have received an invite to
> become a collaborator
> >     >     on the llvm-project repository.  If you did not receive an
> invite and think
> >     >     you should have, please contact me off-list.  I will continue
> to monitor the
> >     >     file for new updates and periodically send out new batches of
> invites.
> >     >
> >     >     There is still some ongoing work to get the buildbots ready
> and the mailing lists
> >     >     ready, but we are optimistic that the work will be done in
> time.
> >     >
> >     >     The team at GitHub has finished implementing the "Require
> Linear History"
> >     >     branch protection that we requested.  The feature is in beta
> and currently
> >     >     enabled in the llvm-project repository.  This means that we
> will have the
> >     >     option to commit directly via git, in addition to using the
> git-llvm script.
> >     >     A patch that updates git-llvm to push to git instead of svn
> can be found here:
> >     >     https://reviews.llvm.org/D67772.  You should be able to test
> it out on your
> >     >     own fork of the llvm-project repository.
> >     >
> >     >     The current plan is to begin the final migration steps on the
> evening (PDT)
> >     >     of October 21.  Here is what will happen:
> >     >
> >     >     1. Make SVN read-only.
> >     >     2. Turn-off the SVN->git update process.
> >     >     3. Commit the new git-llvm script directly to github.
> >     >     4. Grant all contributors write access to the repository.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Is the repo configured to forbid contributors to create new
> branches? I'm worried about the "jungle" it can become quickly if we leave
> open the possibility to create branches "at will" in the repo, I rather
> leave this to maintainers.
> >     >
> >
> >     I haven't been able to find a way to restrict branch creation for
> committers,
> >     I'm not sure if this is even possible.
> >
> >
> > I think you can just go to the branch settings, add a new branch
> protection rule, match on everything but master, and check "Restrict who
> can push to matching branches".
> >
>
> I tried this, and the branch protections only come into effect after a
> branch
> has been creating, so this doesn't prevent new branches.  It's actually
> worse
> than doing nothing, because once the branch is created the branch
> protection
> prevents you from deleting it.
>
> -Tom
>

FWIW, we're interested in periodically (weekly) tagging well-tested/stable
revisions, but via a branch instead of just a tag so we can include which
cherrypicks (e.g. reverts or fixes) are needed. We do this with the current
svn repo so we'd just be porting existing functionality to github.

(Also, I'm not sure this announcement thread with all the *-dev lists is
the best place to discuss branching policy, but I wanted to get this bit in
since y'all brought it up :) )

>
> >
> >
> >     We could try to enforce this rule in the git-llvm script, but this
> would
> >     mean making use of the script mandatory, which was our original
> plan, but
> >     that was based on the assumption that the "Require Linear History"
> >     protection would not be ready in time.
> >
> >     Generally, would it be better if we kept use of the script mandatory
> so that
> >     we can handle this and other potential restrictions in the future?
> >
> >     - Tom
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     5. Email lists announcing that the migration is complete.
> >     >
> >     >     Once the migration is complete, if you run into any issues,
> please file
> >     >     a bug, and mark it as a blocker for the github metabug PR39393.
> >     >
> >     >     If you have any questions or think I am missing something,
> please
> >     >     let me know.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > This is fantastic! Thank you so much for doing this work Tom :)
> >     >
> >     > --
> >     > Mehdi
> >     >
> >     >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20191010/e767fda3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4849 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20191010/e767fda3/attachment.bin>