[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Oct 17 12:14:56 PDT 2019
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:17 AM Philip Reames via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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. :)
Yeah, that about sums up my feelings as well.
> 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> 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?
>>> > 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
>>> > from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history
>>> > 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
>>> > 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
>>> > 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
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> cfe-dev mailing listcfe-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev