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

[Renato Golin via lldb-dev]

I think we should start two other threads: one about git tooling on Windows
and one about infrastructure problems migrating to git.

I'm confident we can solve both problems relatively easily.

Cheers,
Renato
On 1 Jun 2016 10:09 p.m., "Aaron Ballman" <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20160601/af8c0562/attachment-0001.html>