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

[Mehdi Amini via lldb-dev]

> On May 31, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Mehdi
>> Amini via llvm-dev
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 2:38 PM
>> To: Bill Kelly
>> Cc: LLVM Dev; Clang Dev; LLDB Dev
>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] GitHub anyone?
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 31, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Bill Kelly via llvm-dev <llvm-
>> dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>> Personally, I’m hugely in favor of moving llvm’s source hosting to
>> github at
>>>> some point, despite the fact that I continue to dislike git as a tool
>> and
>>>> consider monotonicly increasing version numbers to be hugely
>> beneficial.
>>> 
>>> For whatever it's worth, our projects define a `buildnum` git alias:
>>> 
>>> alias.buildnum=!sh -c "git rev-list --all | wc -l"
> 
> Or the cheaper "git rev-list --count --all" if your git is new enough.
> We do something like this as well.
> 
>>> 
>>> So from the shell:
>>> 
>>> $ git buildnum
>>> 17475
>>> 
>>> This number increases monotonically per commit.
>> 
>> It does not work with branches though (we're not really planning to have
>> branches I believe), 
> 
> You can get a per-branch unique number with this tactic.  On our local
> branches we use "rev-list origin/master.." which is the number of commits
> since branching from master, and that's enough for our local purposes.
> 
>> but more importantly it won't handle cross-repository
>> versioning (how do you relate the number this command prints in the llvm
>> repo to the number it'll print in the clang repo?), which I believe is
>> something important considering our setup.
> 
> Is it really that important?  Or are we just used to the convenience?

I don't know how important it is. How would you bisect without this "convenience" for instance?
(There is nothing like "push date" in git)

-- 
Mehdi


> If the Clang build number is a tuple (cfe-number, llvm-number) instead
> of a single number, how horrible is that really?  If you consider what
> an out-of-tree front end probably does, it's exactly the same thing.
> 
> (I admit that locally we mush cfe+llvm into a single branch and do the
> rev-list count to get a single number. But that's more for our own
> convenience than anything else.)
> --paulr
> 
>> 
>> --
>> Mehdi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Our build scripts make this number available in various #define forms.
>>> 
>>> (We use a little extra scripting logic to also determine whether there
>>> are currently any unmerged or uncommitted changes, and add an annotation
>>> to the program version in that case, e.g.  "9.3.17475 [unmerged]")
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It's all stupidly simple, but seems to work well enough for us.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev