rengolin added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463#489483, @jlebar wrote:
> Again, we can make this work with submodules, but it's a giant pain, see my > earlier comment. (...) > I've read as many of these as I can find in the past few hours, and every > argument I have found is, in my evaluation, very likely overblown or > incorrect. We've heard both sides making equal claims. People work differently. > The critical point is that it's trivial to use sparse checkouts to make the > monolithic repository behave identically to separate repos. But it is > impossible, as far as I'm aware, to make separate repos behave like a > monolithic repository. So the monolithic repository is strictly more > powerful. LLVM is *not* a single project, but a large selection of smaller ones that *are* used independently by the *majority* of users. It may tax you more than others, but it will tax the majority less than today's solution. This is not about finding the best possible way for everyone, since that's clearly impossible. This is about finding the least horrible solution for the majority. > The e-mail you sent out two days ago said two weeks. Can you give me a bit > more than three days? Moving to Git has been in discussion for at least 2 years. This time round, my first email with a concrete proposal to migrate was 2nd June. We had so far 320+ emails about the subject since, and the overwhelming majority is in favour to move to Git and a large part is *content* with sub-modules. Counter proposals were presented (including a monolithic repository) and were all shot down by the community (not me). This is not the time to be second guessing ourselves. I'll be finishing this proposal this week and asking the foundation to put up a survey as soon as possible. > But. I would ask you to please give me a few days to work with the community > to dig in to this specific question. If I am right, it will be a boon for > all of us every time we type a command that starts with "git". And if I'm > wrong, I'll buy you a well-deserved beer or three, and we'll forget it and > move on. A monolithic repository was proposed and discredited by the community. I can't vouch for it myself (in the interest of progress), but we *will* allow people to add comments on the survey. If there is a sound opposition to sub-modules in the survey, and a solid proposal to use a monolithic repo instead, we'll go to the next cycle, in which case, I'll politely step down and let other people in charge (whomever wants it). All in all, we (for any definition of "we") are not going to force anyone to do anything they don't want. But as a community, we really should be thinking about the whole process, not just a single use case. https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
