[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

[David Zarzycki via llvm-dev]

I’d like to see it go away. For better and for worse, git is feature rich and that makes maintaining a wrapper script difficult. Personally speaking, I had to fix a git-llvm bug recently because it made flimsy assumptions about git remote names and how upstream tracking repositories work.

> On Oct 15, 2019, at 10:47 AM, Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> I say retire it instantly.
> 
>> On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
>> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
>> after the GitHub migration.
>> 
>> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
>> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
>> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
>> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.
>> 
>> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
>> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
>> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
>> 
>> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
>> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
>> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we
>> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev