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

[Aaron Ballman via lldb-dev]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:25 PM, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote:
> IMO, if we're switching to git, we should just be clear up front that all
> committers will be expected to switch to git as well -- or at least, if they
> want to use something else (e.g. mercurial's git bridge/etc), that it's
> their own problem.

So anyone still using svn should not expect it to work? That sounds
like a great way to alienate (at least some) active contributors.
However, I do agree that clarity would be nice regarding whether the
decision to switch to git has been "finalized" or not.

> It is truly NOT that big an imposition to require the use of git.

One thing to keep in mind is how well supported the tools are for the
platforms we have contributors actively developing on. As a data
point, I'm on Windows. Last time I tried using TortoiseGit (which
admittedly was over a year ago), it was not ready for production use
due to crashes with simple operations. On the other hand, TortoiseSVN
works very well. While I can certainly make use of the command line, I
don't predominately live in one like others might on non-Windows
systems. So yes, it may be an imposition to require the use of git.

I've not used the git integration in MSVC, so I can't speak to how
well that may work with a project as complex as ours (perhaps someone
else has experience and can speak to it), but that may also be a
viable alternative for those of us on Windows that are already using
MSVC. Other GUI alternatives may also exist that I'm simply unaware
of.

> And knowing how to use git at at least a basic level is an important skill for a
> lot of software development now -- no matter what LLVM does, so I don't feel
> bad for making anyone spend time learning how to use it.
>
> I really don't think that promising and requiring that svn-client using
> people (especially committers: read-only access seems a lot less potentially
> problematic) will keep getting a good development experience after the
> migration is a good idea. I mean, if SVN also happens to work with the
> chosen hosting/workflow in the end, that's fine, I guess. But, I feel that
> should be considered a "if it works, that's okay, but it's not recommended,
> and is not guaranteed" kind of thing.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of jettisoning SVN entirely right out
of the gate.

~Aaron

> Making that a requirement locks us into the use of github as the primary
> repository: no other git hosting has svn support, afaik.
> It means we can't introduce any workflows that wouldn't work well for svn
> users -- or if we do, that such users will probably complain anew when that
> happens.
> And if github's svn bridge turns out to have fatal problems, do we then
> abandon the migration?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > On 1 June 2016 at 17:02, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Do you have a set of volunteers lined up to do such a migration?
>> >> Getting
>> >> people willing to do the migration will obviously be key, and that was
>> >> the
>> >> one thing I didn't see in the original email.
>> >
>> > Hi John,
>> >
>> > Well, first we need to know if people are in favour, then if the
>> > migration won't bring any serious problem, and then we can think of a
>> > migration plan. :)
>> >
>> > So far, it seems people are mostly in favour, with a few that reported
>> > being locked into SVN. I had anticipated that, and have proposed
>> > GitHub's SVN integration, which allows read-write access, so it should
>> > be mostly ok. We need more tests on that side to be sure, though.
>> >
>> > The biggest problem we're facing right now is how to sync the repos.
>> > The existing llvm-repos format with all projects as sub-modules seem
>> > to be a good candidate, but I still haven't seen a consensus on how
>> > we'd do that.
>> >
>> > About the migration plan, most people seem to agree a step-by-step
>> > process is necessary. So, first we move to git-only, possibly with
>> > sub-modules,
>>
>> Despite people's reservations of a git-only repository? I mean, we
>> still don't know that this will even work for people who wish to stay
>> with SVN. I am really not comfortable with this decision based on "it
>> should be mostly ok" from above, but maybe I am misunderstanding
>> something.
>>
>> ~Aaron
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>