On 1 June 2016 at 19:36, Aaron Ballman <aa...@aaronballman.com> wrote: > Despite people's reservations of a git-only repository?
Hi Aaron, not at all! I was especially vague on my first email to make sure SVN folks would be shoved on the side, but John had asked for a full plan *in the case we move*, and I was just completing the picture. Having said that, I can't take that decision alone, and my own opinion is irrelevant on the grand scheme. Right now, our main repo is in SVN with most people using Git. If the vast majority vote for the move, it wouldn't be fair to continue to force SVN on them, and it would be overall less effort for the few people that prefer SVN to have a bit more work than they have today, to save the majority of Git users the extra work. I have no idea how much people is enough to move to Git, but unless we fix the sub-module problem, there's no point in even trying. So, my personal points are: 1. We can only move IFF the Git solution is technically equivalent or superior than what we have today. 2. We should only move IFF the vast majority will see benefits from it, even if a small minority will see some increased effort. Of course, the balance of efforts has to be overall positive. 3. We should not move if there is no replacement for SVN users at the moment. We should try to encourage SVN users to move to Git, to speed up the move, though. I'm assuming the SVN vs. Git argument is not just a personal thing, but a tooling / infrastructure issue. The bigger picture here is not which VCS is better, but getting rid of a huge infrastructure cost from our part, which nowadays means moving to Git or using SourceForge. cheers, --renato _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
