[llvm-dev] New LLVM git repository conversion prototype
David Greene via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Dec 19 10:20:46 PST 2018
[ Consider all of this to be preferences, not anything close to an
Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> There haven't been many more responses in the last few days, so can we
> try to come to some kind of consensus here?
I agree with others that this discussion doesn't have to delay the
official repo from being posted. Let's get that done ASAP. Lots of
people are waiting on it.
> 1. Release tags. There were a lot of small variation on the tag names for releases,
> but it seems like the preferences was to use the llvm.org prefix,
> so I'm going to propose using tag names like:
> Any strong objections to this?
SGTM. I don't think we need a -final suffix or anything. A straight
version number seems to convey intent for many other projects. But not
a big deal either way.
We almost certainly want annotated tags.
> 2. Tags for commits in the master branch that bump the release version.
> Most of the discussion about this so far has been on what to put after
> the version number (e.g. v8.0.0-dev, v8.0.0-base, v8.0.0-branchpoint).
> Other things to consider about this tag is that it might be used in
> a git describe alias to identify commits, so it would be helpful if
> it was short.
> One idea I had after reading through all the responses was to use the
> -git suffix on the tags. e.g. v8.0.0-git. It's short and it's clear
> that you are getting something that isn't an official release. It
> also is similar to the 8.0.0svn version number that we currently use
> to indicate a non-released version. Which of these 4 options(
> dev, base, branchpoint, git) do people prefer?
I agree that -git or -dev could be misleading. I also agree that we may
not need this tag at all. If we want the tag, I thirdly agree that
tagging the split point is more useful/convenient than tagging the
I have a preference for an llvm.org prefix on this tag, just like for
the release tags, for the same reason we have it there: namespacing to
avoid downstream conflicts. But it's certainly not a dealbreaker.
More information about the llvm-dev