[llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories?

[James Y Knight via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> 2) Yes to nested layout.  I find Chandler and Richard Smith's
>> arguments compelling.
>>
>
> I think it is important to note what Richard pointed out: *we will almost
> certainly restructure the tree to make more sense in a monorepo*.
>
> I think the result is actually very likely to look much more flat than the
> current layout, and to also be significantly superior to any of the current
> layouts.
>
> I just don't want people to think this locks us into a particular nested
> layout for all time.
>

I do not find that argument compelling. In particular, while it is
certainly *true* that we can restructure everything later, there is a
significant advantage to making it look like <root>/{llvm,clang} now, if we
think it will end up looking like that in the near future.

Namely: commands like "git log clang" will actually work to give you the
history of files in the clang subdir. While this can be worked around, it
must be worked around by everyone who ever invokes the command in the
future. There's no reason to cause that pain, if we know up front that
we're going to want to immediately move to another layout.

We're be better off figuring out the layout now, and switching to it as
part of the migration.

Basically: Yes, we're not locked in "for all time" -- but at least let's
try to figure out the layout we'd like to have in 6 months, and just do
that up front.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160725/8455f93b/attachment.html>