[PATCH] D24167: Moving to GitHub - Unified Proposal

[Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-commits]

> On 2016-Oct-12, at 15:56, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Oct 12, 2016, at 3:42 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2016-Oct-12, at 15:24, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 12, 2016, at 3:11 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2016-Oct-12, at 14:54, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> + * Refactoring across projects is not frienly: taking some functions from clang
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> s/frienly/friendly/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> +   to make it part of a utility in libSupport wouldn't carry the history of the
>>>>>>> +   code in the llvm repo, preventing recursively applying `git blame` for
>>>>>>> +   instance.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please add: "However, this is no different than the current state.”
>>>>> 
>>>>> I can compromise with "However, this is not very different than the current state.”
>>>>> 
>>>>> Although today I can move code across subproject in a single commit and git blame works in the monorepo export.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm convinced you could set up a monorepo mirror even if the canonical source uses multirepo.
>>> 
>>> Sure, but aggregating the individual repo does not bring the possibility to have a single commit in the aggregation repo that moves code across the original sub-repo, while now you can (the canonical repository supports it). 
>>> 
>>> I’m skeptical that tooling can really help in practice with this (outside of limited trivial cases).
>>> 
>>>> The current state is: multiple subproject refactorings are not friendly (require heavy tooling).  Adopting multirepo doesn't change that much.  It will still be unfriendly, but require heavy tooling.
>>>> 
>>>> How about: "However, this is similar to the current state."?
>> 
>> Let me repeat:
>> 
>> How about: "However, this is similar to the current state.”?
> 
> Let’s look at the full paragraph, I’d write:
> 
> Refactoring across projects is not friendly: taking some functions from clang
> to make it part of a utility in libSupport wouldn't carry the history of the
> code in the llvm repo, preventing recursively applying `git blame` for
> instance. However, this is not very different than how most people are
> Interacting with the repository today, by splitting such change in multiple

s/change/changes/

LGTM.

> commits.