[LLVMdev] svn mirror git?

[Sean Silva]

> 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

Most development is not "some contributor's fork". What you suggest
works great for the occasional drive-by contributors, but most
development is not from drive-by's.

-- Sean Silva

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:01 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.  :)
>
> 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).
>
> 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
>