> -----Original Message----- > From: mehdi.am...@apple.com [mailto:mehdi.am...@apple.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 3:54 PM > To: Robinson, Paul > Cc: Bill Kelly; Clang Dev; LLDB Dev; llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] GitHub anyone? > > > > On May 31, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robin...@sony.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of > Mehdi > >> Amini via llvm-dev > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 2:38 PM > >> To: Bill Kelly > >> Cc: LLVM Dev; Clang Dev; LLDB Dev > >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] GitHub anyone? > >> > >> > >>> On May 31, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Bill Kelly via llvm-dev <llvm- > >> d...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > >>>> Personally, I’m hugely in favor of moving llvm’s source hosting to > >> github at > >>>> some point, despite the fact that I continue to dislike git as a tool > >> and > >>>> consider monotonicly increasing version numbers to be hugely > >> beneficial. > >>> > >>> For whatever it's worth, our projects define a `buildnum` git alias: > >>> > >>> alias.buildnum=!sh -c "git rev-list --all | wc -l" > > > > Or the cheaper "git rev-list --count --all" if your git is new enough. > > We do something like this as well. > > > >>> > >>> So from the shell: > >>> > >>> $ git buildnum > >>> 17475 > >>> > >>> This number increases monotonically per commit. > >> > >> It does not work with branches though (we're not really planning to > have > >> branches I believe), > > > > You can get a per-branch unique number with this tactic. On our local > > branches we use "rev-list origin/master.." which is the number of > commits > > since branching from master, and that's enough for our local purposes. > > > >> but more importantly it won't handle cross-repository > >> versioning (how do you relate the number this command prints in the > llvm > >> repo to the number it'll print in the clang repo?), which I believe is > >> something important considering our setup. > > > > Is it really that important? Or are we just used to the convenience? > > I don't know how important it is. How would you bisect without this > "convenience" for instance? > (There is nothing like "push date" in git)
I know that on a single branch, "git bisect" deals with that for you. I've seen the talk about submodules but I have no clue how that works or whether git-bisect can operate cleanly in that situation. --paulr > > -- > Mehdi > > > > If the Clang build number is a tuple (cfe-number, llvm-number) instead > > of a single number, how horrible is that really? If you consider what > > an out-of-tree front end probably does, it's exactly the same thing. > > > > (I admit that locally we mush cfe+llvm into a single branch and do the > > rev-list count to get a single number. But that's more for our own > > convenience than anything else.) > > --paulr > > > >> > >> -- > >> Mehdi > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Our build scripts make this number available in various #define forms. > >>> > >>> (We use a little extra scripting logic to also determine whether there > >>> are currently any unmerged or uncommitted changes, and add an > annotation > >>> to the program version in that case, e.g. "9.3.17475 [unmerged]") > >>> > >>> > >>> It's all stupidly simple, but seems to work well enough for us. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> LLVM Developers mailing list > >>> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> LLVM Developers mailing list > >> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
