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

[Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Dean
> Michael Berris via llvm-dev
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 5:04 AM
> To: David Chisnall
> Cc: LLVM Developers; Bruce Hoult
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories?
> 
> 
> > On 29 Jul 2016, at 21:58, David Chisnall <david.chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 29 Jul 2016, at 12:35, Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I understand this, but why isn't "the repo you're interested in" just
> the megarepo (or monorepo) where every LLVM project resides?
> >
> > Your assumption is a downstream user of LLVM.  As previously pointed
> out, we have downstream users of libc++ and the sanitizer runtimes who
> compile with gcc.  For a downstream user of LLVM, the cost of getting
> everything else is in the noise.  For a downstream user of libc++ who may
> want to contribute upstream, the overhead is huge.
> >
> 
> Even then, are we seriously ignoring the fact that even if you did clone
> the whole repository including everything, that you can still build just
> the libc++ and sanitiser runtimes if you wanted to?

Is it that easy to build a subset of a large checked-out tree?  I haven't
tried it but my impression is: not so much.  Certainly the advertised
tactics for configuring/building don't tell you how to do that.  Somebody
figuring out what it takes would be very constructive here, instead of
just asserting it can't possibly be that hard.

> Why is this "noise" of
> any importance to the users who get what they want and then some?

You want to drive to work? Here, have this semi-trailer; everything
you want and then some.

I believe David Chisnall up-thread cited a difference in checkout times
on the order of a handful of seconds versus a couple of minutes.  While
naively it might seem not a big deal, over time and depending on what you
are trying to do yes it can be a big burden.

For example right now I have a glitch somewhere in my merge process.
It's taking an extra 10-12 seconds longer to do something than I think
it should, per commit.  NBD right?  Except when you're 100 commits behind
and trying to catch up, now you're talking about >15 minutes wasted.
Again in the grand scheme of things 15 minutes doesn't seem like much
but it seriously affects my productivity; it's actually hard to come up
with tasks that small that I can context-switch to and back easily.
Interruptions like that really are bad for your ability to concentrate
on the intellectual task of getting your patch to work.
--paulr

> 
> I know some people use only numbered releases of LLVM and the projects.
> They can keep using those as long as LLVM provides them.
> 
> Is it really impossible to just build non-LLVM dependent versions of
> libc++ or the sanitiser runtimes if they reside in one git megarepo?
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev