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

[Manuel Jacob via lldb-dev]

On 2016-05-31 22:45, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote:
>> On May 31, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On 31 May 2016 at 21:28, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>>> Ideally, I'd prefer the cross-repository to be handled with an extra 
>>> layer, in a way similar as described in: 
>>> https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/user-submodules.htm 
>>> (somehow conceptually similar to Android manifests XML files).
>>> It would be easy to have tooling/scripts for llvm that would easily 
>>> say "checkout llvm+clang+compiler-rt+libcxx+clang-extra here", or 
>>> "update all llvm subproject under this root", or "checkout this 
>>> specific revision for all these" (with a monotonic number for the 
>>> revision).
>> 
>> At Linaro, we already have a set of scripts that do that. We're now
>> moving to git worktree, and I think it's going to simplify our work
>> considerably. But honestly, I'd rather not force anyone to use any set
>> of scripts, and let people work directly with git, so I'd be more in
>> favour of having a server-side solution, if at all possible.
> 
> Apparently I wasn't very clear: llvm and clang (and the others
> projects) would be simple decoupled, individual git repositories. You
> would be able to check them out however you want and commit to them
> individually.
> There would be an extra "integration repository" on top that would
> only provide the service that tells "r12345 is llvm:36c941c
> clang:eaf492b compiler-rt:6d77ea5". This repository should be managed
> transparently by some server-side integration.
> The provided scripting I was referring to would just be a convenience
> that is using this extra layer of metadata ("integration repository")
> to be able checkout the other individual repositories together at the
> right "rev-lock" revision.
> This is not on your way if you don't want to use it, but it provides
> this "single increase monotonic revision number across multiple
> repository" that is convenient for some people.
> 
> Makes sense?

How would you ensure that two dependent changes on different 
repositories get the same revision number?