[llvm-dev] RFC: Deleting git-svn folder (git-llvm, git-svnrevert, git-svnup)
Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sun May 17 06:31:45 PDT 2020
I was using "git llvm push" from the command-line, and it saved me numerous
times from accidentally pushing multiple local commits.
IIUC, the only problem is that the script was living in a sub-directory
with svn-related scripts and has a couple of svn code comments within.
Is there a newer/better alternative suggested workflow? My git knowledge is
minimal.
If not, I'd like to see that functionality restored (without having to
maintain it locally).
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 7:11 PM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi Zola,
>
> thanks for the response.
>
>
> People brought forth reasons why we should not have git scripts in the
> repo.
>
> I'm not sure about that but as long as we don't see other people coming
> forward,
> we don't need it in the repo. I can have a private copy after all.
>
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Johannes
>
>
>
> On 5/15/20 2:16 PM, Zola Bridges via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> 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><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> <yamauchi at google.com> <yamauchi at google.com>
> >> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> <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> <yamauchi at google.com
>
> wrote:
> > <yamauchi at google.comwrote:>> 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><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> <echristo at gmail.com><mailto:echristo at gmail.com> <echristo at gmail.com> <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><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><zbrid at google.com> <zbrid at google.com><mailto:zbrid at google.com> <zbrid at google.com> <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><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><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailinglistllvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailinglistllvm-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 listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://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 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200517/ab5d61a5/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list