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

[Mike Edwards via llvm-dev]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:29 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 9:26 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:26 PM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I say retire it instantly.
>>>>
>>> +1. It has never been a real requirement to use the script. Using native
>>> svn is still viable until the point of the migration.
>>>
>>
>> It was a requirement for the "linear history" feature. With GitHub
>> providing this now, I'm also +1 on retiring the tool unless there is a
>> another use that can be articulated for it?
>>
>
> I believe one thing mentioned was that if the tool was required, it could
> be used to enforce a do-not-branch policy. That's the thing I've seen
> discussed so far. (& questions as to whether that's worth it, whether
> there's other ways to enforce it, etc)
>

I think at this point it might be better to invest effort in tooling for
GitHub to prevent unwanted branches.  We have a GitHub integration
currently which auto-rejects pull-requests, I think we might be able to do
something similar to protect against undesired branches (don't know this
for sure yet).  This work would happen after the cutover though.

-Mike


>
>
- Dave
>
>>
>> --
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20191016/0b169d64/attachment.html>