[llvm-dev] Git Transition status?

[Keane, Erich via llvm-dev]

I see, thank you very much for the update!  I’m glad it is moving forward.

-Erich

From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 1:38 PM
To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Git Transition status?

Hi,

The main outcome of the BoF had the dev meeting was that we agree’d that moving to GitHub was the best choice forward for LLVM (IIRC only one person in the room expressed concerned about GitHub, but he said he had personal grief with them and nothing specific for LLVM).

The unknown that remains is: will we use a mono-repo or a multi-repo. On this aspect:

- We got consensus at the BoF that downstream users (i.e. non-contributors) are not impacted by this choice, and we’re not gonna optimize the repository structure for them.
- My reading of the survey is that the monorepo has a significant lead.
- My understanding of the dynamic of the discussions and question during the BoF is that monorepo has a significant lead, is likely to satisfy more people, and has a very small number of people concerned about it. On the other hand many people have strong feeling about the multirepo.

Considering all the current tradeoffs, it is likely that we will move-on with a monorepo, even if there are no guarantee or decision made at this point.

The path forward (already engaged) is to engage a prototype phase: we’re building a monorepo and trying to make it usable as much as possible, without making any change or building anything that would commit us to a monorepo (for instance we’re not gonna migrate any bots to it).

The goal of this prototype is that developers can start using a monorepo to try it, and we can evaluate how it plays in practice, outside of theoretical considerations. If anyone finds concerns about a given workflow, we can study what can be improved to address it, or maybe we’ll hit a wall that would show that monorepo can’t address what we think it will.

At some point, if the experiment is conclusive, we should be able to build a larger majority and hopefully reach a consensus that the proposed prototype can be considered viable for development and start planning the actual committing changes.

The monorepo is not totally ready yet, but you can already experience it (I live on day-to-day for my development, and a few other people as well), instructions are in the doc: http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#for-developers-to-work-with-a-git-monorepo

I don’t have any schedule to announce, hopefully we can make it all happen in 2017.

Best,

—
Mehdi


On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

Hi all-
I was wondering if anyone knew what the status/schedule of the SVN to git/github transition was?  I thought I saw that at the November meeting it was agreed upon, but I'm not sure I saw any progress since?

Thanks,
Erich
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170113/fb2f7942/attachment-0001.html>