[LLVMdev] svn mirror git?

[Sean Silva]

> I'd suggest you/others read the previous thread discussing this issue.
> It's a bit tricky to link to a whole thread in the llvm-dev mail
> archive, but here's one part of it:
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-July/041738.html

Maybe I should add this to the FAQ? Does this look good?:

Why don't you move from svn to git?
==============================

Please read the following discussions about the issue, and think
carefully before bringing it up on the list:

* http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-July/041738.html
* ... others ...

-- Sean Silva

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:27 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>>> As for actually switching to git. I see no benefit to justify the cost
>>> of switching unless we actually take advantage of git's features. And
>>> I've yet to see anyone propose this.
>>
>> Then I'll be the first.  :)
>
> I'd suggest you/others read the previous thread discussing this issue.
> It's a bit tricky to link to a whole thread in the llvm-dev mail
> archive, but here's one part of it:
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-July/041738.html
>
>> The benefit is that the review process would require no file copies or email
>> attachments, shorter email conversations, no copying code during reviews to
>> simulate inline comments, and no need to "git rebase" to push to the top of
>> svn.  I wouldn't be surprised if the difference was so significant that
>> folks would stop using the llvm-commits list altogether.  To see what
>> changed, you'd check the github mirror, and to contribute you could post a
>> link to llvmdev (not too noisy).
>
> Essentially that's precisely what we want to avoid. The intention is
> to keep discussion & review in the shared public view & keep the
> codebase in a (mostly) singular state. The transition to git would
> have to be justified on its merits while still preserving that
> workflow, not while working against it.
>
> (I'm not sure how folks would stop using llvm-commits all together, if
> we still have as much shared development there would still be a push
> email for every shared commit, an email for every review request, and
> if the reduction in email was because review happened off-list, that
> would be a loss, not a benefit)
>
>> For example, say github's llvm-mirror was a contributor's fork.  The review
>> process might look like this:
>>
>> Contributor:
>>      Please review my patch:
>> https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/commit/4823be3be1d87632fbd51ce8e51a58ee5e44b115
>>
>> Maintainer:
>>     Adds inline comments with online tool.  Then when patch is looking good:
>>     $ git fetch https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm.git
>>     $ git cherry-pick 4823be3be1d87632fbd51ce8e51a58ee5e44b115
>>     $ git push
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM, David Chisnall
>>> <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> >> > I think svn works better than git as an authoritative upstream
>>> >>
>>> >> Would you mind expanding on this?  What problem specifically is being
>>> >> solved?  Linus and Guido both use DVCS's and the authoritative upstream is
>>> >> whatever URL the BDFL says it is.
>>> >
>>> > Monotonic version numbers are the biggest advantage.  It is easy to see
>>> > that r1234432 contains the bug fix introduced in r1234430. It is very hard
>>> > to see if version 23bef194ac contains the bug fix added in 23bef19412.  This
>>> > makes interaction with bugzilla and so on much easier.  If someone says
>>> > 'please test r1245145 - should be fixed' you can easily check whether you
>>> > are running r1245145 or newer.
>>> >
>>> > David
>>>
>>> git branch --contains 23bef19412
>>>
>>> This will tell you which of your branches have that commit and
>>> highlight the current branch you are on.
>>>
>>> Git also has monotonically increasing identifiers for each commit. The
>>> time stamp. Which I find much more informative than a revision number
>>> split between multiple repositories.
>>>
>>> As for actually switching to git. I see no benefit to justify the cost
>>> of switching unless we actually take advantage of git's features. And
>>> I've yet to see anyone propose this. So for now, git-svn works for me.
>>>
>>> - Michael Spencer
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev