[llvm-dev] GitHub anyone?
Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jun 1 13:21:56 PDT 2016
> On Jun 1, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Manuel Jacob <me at manueljacob.de> wrote:
> On 2016-05-31 22:45, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote:
>>> On May 31, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> On 31 May 2016 at 21:28, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> Ideally, I'd prefer the cross-repository to be handled with an extra layer, in a way similar as described in: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/user-submodules.htm (somehow conceptually similar to Android manifests XML files).
>>>> It would be easy to have tooling/scripts for llvm that would easily say "checkout llvm+clang+compiler-rt+libcxx+clang-extra here", or "update all llvm subproject under this root", or "checkout this specific revision for all these" (with a monotonic number for the revision).
>>> At Linaro, we already have a set of scripts that do that. We're now
>>> moving to git worktree, and I think it's going to simplify our work
>>> considerably. But honestly, I'd rather not force anyone to use any set
>>> of scripts, and let people work directly with git, so I'd be more in
>>> favour of having a server-side solution, if at all possible.
>> Apparently I wasn't very clear: llvm and clang (and the others
>> projects) would be simple decoupled, individual git repositories. You
>> would be able to check them out however you want and commit to them
>> There would be an extra "integration repository" on top that would
>> only provide the service that tells "r12345 is llvm:36c941c
>> clang:eaf492b compiler-rt:6d77ea5". This repository should be managed
>> transparently by some server-side integration.
>> The provided scripting I was referring to would just be a convenience
>> that is using this extra layer of metadata ("integration repository")
>> to be able checkout the other individual repositories together at the
>> right "rev-lock" revision.
>> This is not on your way if you don't want to use it, but it provides
>> this "single increase monotonic revision number across multiple
>> repository" that is convenient for some people.
>> Makes sense?
> How would you ensure that two dependent changes on different repositories get the same revision number?
I don't plan to try to address that. I plan to reproduce the behavior we have right now when someone commit an API change in LLVM and separately commit the fix in clang: the fix gets a different revision number.
I'm not sure how to be robust against that other than putting all the projects in the same repo and asking developers to build them all before push.
If you have ideas/suggestions, please share!
More information about the llvm-dev