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

[Renato Golin via lldb-dev]

On 1 June 2016 at 20:31, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
> Our main repo is in SVN; I would say we don't know what most people
> are using (aside from "svn for write access because it's the only
> option").

If the LLVM Meetings are any indication, and they are at least related
to the most active developers, everyone I've asked (and I did ask a
lot over the last 2 years) was using Git for development. Most people
were using Git-SVN for commits, with some few still using a separate
SVN repository.

I'm not really too worried about personal preferences. The
infrastructure cost alone is more important than any of our
preferences. That is why I have been using SVN all these years, even
though I hate it more than I once hated CVS.

The admin cost is high, and we're not sysadmins, so GitHub would
provide an *immense* value for the price of $0. I can't argue we that.

But there are also downstream infrastructure issues that need to be
taken into account. As James said, knowing Git well is almost a
required skill nowadays, and everything is done thinking about Git
these days, so the likelihood that you'll find a replacement for your
company's infrastructure to work with Git is higher than a new process
will work well with SVN. In the long term, SVN will be just like CVS
was 10 years ago or RCS 20. It'll be impossible to work with them, and
companies depending on that infrastructure will be in *serious*
trouble.



> Fair points, but with the caveat that people using git today have a
> workable solution (as I understand it, and I could be totally wrong)
> using the git mirrors. That's not a reason to not transition from svn
> to git, however.

Indeed. It's all about the overall costs for the whole community.
Personal preferences will be mostly diluted, with strong technical
arguments being the driving forces.


> This is implying that we will move, which I think should still be left
> as a vague question mark until we have more answers. Based on that, I
> think it's premature to encourage anyone to switch to git.

I will (only slightly and personally) disagree, based on James' point
of how important Git is today.

Ever since I discovered Git I have always encouraged people to use it,
regardless, and I'll keep encouraging. :)

But that's irrelevant to the discussion.


> but I am worried when emails make it
> sound like switching to git-only is a foregone conclusion, which is a
> bit of a strange way to start a discussion about whether the community
> wants to switch.

I think that's just the result of people enthusiastic with the
opportunity to move to a better working environment. Not everyone is,
but those that are, are showing.

This is another indication that there are more Git users than SVN
users, but not an argument to force the move.

The only arguments we should accept are technical ones.

cheers,
--renato