[LLVMdev] git Status Update?

[David A. Greene]

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes:

> On Sep 8, 2011, at 5:09 PM, David A. Greene wrote:
>>> For me, the question is "why do we *need* to switch our versioning
>>> system?". Nothing is broken with our current model. 
>> 
>> There are things broken with the current model, though you may not care
>> about them.  It is not possible to conveniently keep a private copy of
>> LLVM and associated projects and sync regularly with upstream.  It flat
>> out sucks.  This is because the svn model is fundamentally opposed to
>> the idea of private repositories.  There's One True Repository and
>> that's it.
>
> You need to separate "what is good for David" from "what is good for
> the project".

I am simply attempting to explain where svn falls down.  As you have
made clear before, you don't care about those areas.  That's fine.  But
it doesn't mean those concerns/needs go away.

It's certainly been more than just me arguing for a switch.

> Encouraging decentralized development and long-lived branches is not
> actually in the best interest of the project.

Who said anything about long-lived branches?  Nothing about git
necessitates that.

And open source development is by nature decentrailized, so I'm not sure
what you're getting at.

> I agree that there are some (quite minor IMO, like offline commits)
> advantages that git can provide over SVN for the preferred llvm
> development workflow.

I have outlined repeatedly advantages that come with git beyond simple
things like offline commits.  To me, the biggest advantage for LLVM is
the direct tool support it has for the LLVM review process.  I don't
know why that keeps getting dismissed as unimportant.

>  However, there are also large costs to switch (both in terms of
>  effort, but also in terms of forcing lots of people to learn new
>  things) and the result is going to be *worst* in as many places as it
>  is better.

Yes, there is cost.  There is a cost with staying with svn as well.
And I do not think we can assert that the result of a switch will
necessarily be worse in the same/more places as it is better.  That
is pure speculation.

> I don't see the conversion to Git actually happening until someone can
> clearly demonstrate a win for the open source project.

Well, I give up then.  I've written a couple of documents trying to
demonstrate just that.  Apparently I have been unsuccessful.

                              -Dave