[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?
Philip Reames via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Oct 17 11:16:39 PDT 2019
I'm also a strong proponent of not requiring the wrapper.
The linear history piece was important enough to make the cost worth
it. The extra branches piece really isn't. If someone creates a branch
that's not supposed to exist, we just delete it. No big deal. It will
happen, but the cost is so low I don't worry about it.
There's a bunch of things in our developer policy we don't enforce
except through social means. I don't see any reason why the "no
branches" thing needs to be special.
If we really want some automation, a simple script that polls for new
branches every five minutes and deletes them unless on a while list
would work just fine. :)
Philip
On 10/15/19 9:26 PM, Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:26 PM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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?
>
> --
> Mehdi
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191017/cc1f4b8e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list