[llvm-dev] RFC: Deleting git-svn folder (git-llvm, git-svnrevert, git-svnup)
Zola Bridges via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sun May 17 10:19:17 PDT 2020
Hi Sanjay,
I added some documentation about an alternative workflow since I thought
the Getting Started guide's current section was a bit sparse. Would
you mind taking a look and letting me know if it's not clear or if it's
missing some information/context that would be helpful?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80088
Zola Bridges
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 6:31 AM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote:
> 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/20200517/0bf6f31d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list