On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 1 June 2016 at 17:02, John Criswell <jtcris...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Do you have a set of volunteers lined up to do such a migration? Getting >> people willing to do the migration will obviously be key, and that was the >> one thing I didn't see in the original email. > > Hi John, > > Well, first we need to know if people are in favour, then if the > migration won't bring any serious problem, and then we can think of a > migration plan. :) > > So far, it seems people are mostly in favour, with a few that reported > being locked into SVN. I had anticipated that, and have proposed > GitHub's SVN integration, which allows read-write access, so it should > be mostly ok. We need more tests on that side to be sure, though. > > The biggest problem we're facing right now is how to sync the repos. > The existing llvm-repos format with all projects as sub-modules seem > to be a good candidate, but I still haven't seen a consensus on how > we'd do that. > > About the migration plan, most people seem to agree a step-by-step > process is necessary. So, first we move to git-only, possibly with > sub-modules,
Despite people's reservations of a git-only repository? I mean, we still don't know that this will even work for people who wish to stay with SVN. I am really not comfortable with this decision based on "it should be mostly ok" from above, but maybe I am misunderstanding something. ~Aaron _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
