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

[Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev]

Le lun. 3 déc. 2018 à 07:47, James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> a écrit :

> 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...
>

I agree, does not seem like this got enough traction at this point.

-- 
Mehdi




>
> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181203/1a82ff8c/attachment.html>