[llvm-dev] RFC: Dealing with out of tree changes and the LLVM git monorepo

[James Y Knight via llvm-dev]

I don't feel like I can unilaterally declare this topic closed, since there
was an objection to that last time.

But with no additional feedback after another week, I'd still really like
to close this out, and start moving forward with the original plan, again...

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 2:28 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote:

> It's been a week and a half more (much of which was holiday the US,
> granted). If there's no more arguments in favor of going with a zipper
> repo, I'd really like to wrap this thread up.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 1:32 AM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I’m still trying to evaluate the migration script’s downsides as
>> compared to the zipper approach’s downsides. Sorry that I got a little held
>> up, but I have to balance evaluating this with getting other work done.
>>
>> I should have some feedback to a few of the responses on this thread next
>> week. I really don’t think I can respond in a useful/productive way before
>> I’ve finished these experiments.
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2018, at 16:07, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think Justin was still experimenting a bit w/ the migration script. I'd
>> like to at least let him get back to this with the results of that?
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:55 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Based on the feedback so far, I propose that we call this discussion
>>> done -- we will not go with this zippered proposal, but will proceed with
>>> https://github.com/llvm-git-prototype/llvm/.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 5:06 PM David Greene via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > What is the status with this proposal?  It has been 2 weeks now since
>>>> > the initial email and it seems like the discussion  is slowing down.
>>>> Do
>>>> > we still want to consider this zippered approach as a possibility for
>>>> the
>>>> > official repo?
>>>>
>>>> I have very strong feedback from the engineer who does our upstream
>>>> merges that he does NOT want to see this zippered repository.  A clean
>>>> linear history makes understanding merges much easier.
>>>>
>>>> James made a number of other important points about limitations of the
>>>> zippered repository:
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-November/127460.html
>>>>
>>>> git-bisect being more complicated is a deal-breaker for me.  Checking
>>>> out a random commit and only getting part of the project is just odd.
>>>>
>>>>                              -David
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> 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/20181203/4e71409b/attachment.html>