[llvm-dev] RFC: Deleting git-svn folder (git-llvm, git-svnrevert, git-svnup)
Zola Bridges via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri May 15 12:16:05 PDT 2020
Hey everyone,
I missed the discussion on this thread after I submitted the patch, so I'm
chiming in a bit late.
I'm totally okay if folks want to add git-llvm back to the repo. (It sounds
like the other scripts, git-svnup, git-revertsvn can remain deleted.
Correct me if I'm wrong there.)
My understanding was that the scripts were primarily a tool used during the
git-svn migration and thus were no longer useful and so the reason to
delete them would be to get rid of unused code/scripts. An earlier
discussion on improving the tool ended with folks suggesting it wasn't
useful to add functionality to it since it was a workflow that we
were moving away from and I later found that references to git-llvm in the
documentation had been removed, so those are other reasons I had the
impression it was basically dead code.
I didn't consider that other folks would still be using git-llvm in their
personal workflows which, in hindsight, I should have. Sorry about that!
The last reason the delete happened was that there were no objections until
after the patch was submitted. :) I'll chalk that up to it being difficult
to keep up with llvm-dev since it's very active. I've missed threads I
meant to contribute to in the past.
If folks want to add this back to the repo, I'm not opposed.
Zola Bridges
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 1:49 AM James Henderson via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> FWIW, I'm not against people using the script if there's a good reason for
> it, but I'd be somewhat opposed to mandating it, as that could easily get
> confusing for people like me who work in both downstream and upstream repos
> who wouldn't want to use the scripts downstream - it would be fairly
> straightforward to forget to use it/use it incorrectly, and depending on
> what the script actually does, this could cause various unwanted side
> effects, which may not even be noticed immediately.
>
> On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 23:30, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> I think the only reason is whether or not we want to encourage anything
>> as part of them or whether we want "llvm specific" commit
>> advice/instructions/etc where we want people to use these for sure.
>>
>> That said, git isn't the most command line friendly of VCSs for me so if
>> we want to have something that makes things just a little easier I'm down,
>> but would like to see what we expect them to do documented (here?) and ...
>> documented (on the web page).
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -eric
>>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:25 PM Johannes Doerfert <
>> johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For some reason this thread seems to be gone in a wrong direction. I'm
>>> sorry for that.
>>>
>>>
>>> The discussion on the RFC asked for a reason to keep the script, I think
>>> we heard reasons to do so (due to branches).
>>>
>>> Now, I was unable to determine if the `git llvm` scripts was removed
>>> "just as part of the bunch" or if we expect a problem with the script.
>>>
>>> If it is the former, are there reasons against adding it back?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Johannes
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/12/20 5:13 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>>> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:56 PM Johannes Doerfert <
>>> > johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> TBH, all I initially asked for, still ask for, is a reason why `git
>>> >> llvm` was being removed.
>>> >
>>> > Fair enough - and 24 hours later no one had replied to your inquiry - I
>>> > don't think that's a huge deal, to be honest - I've certainly had to
>>> > follow-up with higher email latencies than that pretty regularly. Eric
>>> had
>>> > replied to someone else's question pretty reasonably "what do I use
>>> > instead?" "git push" (what most people have been using since the
>>> transition)
>>> >> Your email was the only one that hinted on a
>>> >> reason.
>>> >>
>>> > I think the original proposal & response covered that - they seem(ed)
>>> like
>>> > dead code ("My understanding of these tools is that they were useful
>>> for
>>> > when we were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the
>>> migration is
>>> > complete, they can be deleted as they are either unnecessary or there
>>> are
>>> > other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push --> git push).") -
>>> > some folks agreed, and time was given in case anyone had use cases they
>>> > wanted to bring up & didn't.
>>> >
>>>
>>> >> (more below)
>>> >>
>>> >> On 5/12/20 4:00 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>>> >> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:50 PM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev <
>>> >> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> @Zola, Eric,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I really feel the communication and reasoning here is
>>> problematic.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> From my perspective, you removed stuff "we don't need", ignoring
>>> >> whether
>>> >> >> it is used, and then let people figure out how to deal with the
>>> result.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> What I most dislike about the process most is how questions and
>>> >> concerns
>>> >> >> are then ignored or played down.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> > Honestly, I think Zola did more than I'd have expected to be done
>>> for
>>> >> this
>>> >> > - sending out the proposal (to llvm-dev, not just llvm-commits,
>>> even) &
>>> >> > waiting a week for feedback.
>>> >>
>>> >> Sure. That is why I did not mention the process that lead to the
>>> situation.
>>> >> I think my email/questions are well in line with post-commit review
>>> >> standards but people seem to disagree.
>>> >>
>>> > I don't think your first email was unreasonable/not sure anyone's
>>> saying it
>>> > was unreasonable?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>> Suggesting that LLVM developers (the, apparently rather small (based
>>> on
>>> >> > feedback from before/after this change) number of them) migrate
>>> to the
>>> >> > standard git functionality for contributing to git projects seems
>>> >> like it's
>>> >> > in line with discussions I recall seeing before and after the git
>>> >> migration
>>> >> > - that the git-llvm scripts were migration tools (there was some
>>> >> discussion
>>> >> > about whether they might be used for more post-migration, to
>>> enforce
>>> >> > certain constraints, etc - but those ideas were not accepted/moved
>>> >> forward
>>> >> > with).
>>> >>
>>> >> I recall no decision being made back in October 2019 and that we will
>>> >> see how it goes. Till now I thought it went fine, or at least I
>>> haven't
>>> >> understood what needed fixing.
>>> >>
>>> > I think the migration went fine, yes - but these scripts seem to me
>>> like a
>>> > vestige of the hybrid situation & no longer needed/especially
>>> beneficial.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>> I have some concern about adding these scripts back in as they may
>>> >> lead to
>>> >> > greater divergence in developer experience and/or become less
>>> >> relevant over
>>> >> > time and a weird thing for newcomers to stumble over, perhaps.
>>> But I
>>> >> don't
>>> >> > feel /that/ strongly, if other folks particularly prefer using
>>> them,
>>> >> they
>>> >> > seem mostly harmless.
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't think I understand your concerns. Could you elaborate what
>>> >> divergence you can see in the future? FWIW, if the scripts are broken
>>> >> and people stumble over them it means no one takes care of them and
>>> >> removal is adequate.
>>> >>
>>> > I'd generally prefer to remove things sooner rather than later,
>>> personally.
>>> > I believe some of the original motivation was an offline discussion
>>> about
>>> > adding more features (to trim unnecessary Phabricator fields, I
>>> believe) to
>>> > them & a response was that they're not really used/encouraged & so
>>> adding
>>> > features wouldn't be especially valuable - so the thought was to go the
>>> > other way, rather than keeping them around, and building processes that
>>> > might only work with the scripts & then being let down when those
>>> processes
>>> > aren't adhered to by most of the community (because they're not using
>>> the
>>> > scripts) it'd be better to remove them and standardize practices on the
>>> > plain git tools.
>>> >
>>> > - Dave
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >> Johannes
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> > - Dave
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Thanks,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Johannes
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On 5/12/20 2:10 PM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> FWIW, if you do your development in git-branches, it is a little
>>> >> more than that. IT ends up being:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> git push origin HEAD:master.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Which is somewhat easy to mess up. For example, I inverted the
>>> >> HEAD/master at one point and ended up creating a branch named “HEAD”
>>> at
>>> >> one point.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
>>> >> <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Eric Christopher via
>>> >> llvm-dev
>>> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:59 AM
>>> >> >> To: Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> <yamauchi at google.com>
>>> >> >> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> >> >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Deleting git-svn folder (git-llvm,
>>> >> git-svnrevert, git-svnup)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Just push :)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Tue, May 12, 2020, 8:46 AM Hiroshi Yamauchi
>>> >> <yamauchi at google.com<mailto:yamauchi at google.com> <yamauchi at google.com
>>> >>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> I was also using "git llvm push" to commit, sort of out of habit.
>>> >> What's a recommended, alternative way to push?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:57 AM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev
>>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I was actually using `git llvm` in my daily workflow.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Could you explain why we want people to move away from that
>>> script?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> In addition to the convenience, it prevented me from accidentally
>>> >> creating a new branch (which I did before with push once).
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Cheers,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Johannes
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On 5/11/20 11:43 AM, Zola Bridges via llvm-dev wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Deleted this morning. Thanks!
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Zola Bridges
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:35 PM Eric Christopher <
>>> echristo at gmail.com>
>>> >> <echristo at gmail.com><mailto:echristo at gmail.com> <echristo at gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Giving at least one explicit:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Sounds good to me.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:01 PM Zola Bridges via llvm-dev <
>>> >> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Here is a link to the patch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79348
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Zola Bridges
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:50 AM Zola Bridges <zbrid at google.com>
>>> >> <zbrid at google.com><mailto:zbrid at google.com> <zbrid at google.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Hi everyone,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I would like to delete this folder of svn to git migration tools.
>>> >> >>
>>> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/master/llvm/utils/git-svn
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> My understanding of these tools is that they were useful for
>>> when we
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> were migrating between Git and SVN, but now, since the migration
>>> is
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> complete, they can be deleted as they are either unnecessary or
>>> >> there are
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> other more common workflow options (ie git llvm push --> git
>>> push).
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> - Is there any reason these scripts should continue to exist
>>> that
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I'm not aware of?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> - I'd like to delete these next Monday. Is that timeline
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> unacceptable to anyone?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Thanks,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Zola Bridges
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> >> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> >> <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>
>>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> >> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> LLVM Developers mailing
>>> >> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> LLVM Developers mailing
>>> >> listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://
>>> >> 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/20200515/3e0626e1/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list