Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?
I think it's a "Cross that bridge when we come to it" See if manual enforcement is sufficient - if it becomes a real problem that's too annoying to handle manually/culturally, then assess what sort of automation/enforcement seems appropriate for the situation we are in at that time. On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:42 PM Qiu Chaofan via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I think it's okay to auto-delete these unexpected branches by either > cron job or GitHub webhook. But should the system send email to those > branch creators notifying that their branch has been removed and > attach the patch file? Or we need to clarify this in project's README > or GitHub's project description. > > Regards, > Qiu Chaofan > ___ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:17 AM Philip Reames via llvm-dev < llvm-...@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. > 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-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev < >> llvm-...@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-...@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-...@lists.llvm.org >>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >>> ___ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >> ___ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > > ___ > cfe-dev mailing > listcfe-...@lists.llvm.orghttps://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > > ___ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 9:26 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:26 PM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev < > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev < >> llvm-...@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? > I believe one thing mentioned was that if the tool was required, it could be used to enforce a do-not-branch policy. That's the thing I've seen discussed so far. (& questions as to whether that's worth it, whether there's other ways to enforce it, etc) - Dave > > -- > Mehdi > > > >> >> >>> >>> > On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev < >>> cfe-...@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-...@lists.llvm.org >>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >>> ___ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >> ___ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > ___ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?
I’d like to see it go away. For better and for worse, git is feature rich and that makes maintaining a wrapper script difficult. Personally speaking, I had to fix a git-llvm bug recently because it made flimsy assumptions about git remote names and how upstream tracking repositories work. > On Oct 15, 2019, at 10:47 AM, Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev > wrote: > > I say retire it instantly. > >> On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev >> 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-...@lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > ___ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
