> On Jun 2, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev > <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I personally find this email thread very hard to follow and read (this isn’t > anyones fault.. its just a lot of replies). I am sure others do as well. I > think it would be good to have a form/survey of some sort that can get > feedback from users such as: who they are, how they use > LLVM/contributions/etc, if they are pro-github move, how it impacts them, > etc. People could then submit their feedback in an organized way and we could > get a better idea of how the community feels on the topic. > > I am happy to try to set something like this up.
I don't think it is a good idea to set this up like that without having a well defined plan first. My idea is rather that we should first try to see what is doable in term of server-side hook and integration so that the "poll" is not about naked "svn vs git", but about "svn vs git-with-this-server-side-setup-that-preserve-our-workflow". -- Mehdi > > -Tanya > >> On Jun 2, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev >> <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> A little summary... >> >> After a lot of discussion, I think we converged to a few issues that >> we need to solved before we finally decide to move. >> >> Firstly, the responses were overwhelmingly positive (I counted 20 of >> the ~25 people strongly supporting and another 2~3 weakly supporting). >> This is a good indication that the move could be very beneficial to >> the community as a whole, including downstream infrastructure, not >> just the reduction in upstream infrastructure admin costs. >> >> But that doesn't mean we have cleared up all the issues... >> >> >> The benefits I gathered from the thread: >> >> * Infrastructure admin (not just server costs) is too expensive. >> We're not sysadmins and maintaining all the tools is a full time job. >> Volunteering works for odd problems, not for production services. >> Furthermore, most of the infrastructure we need is covered by >> GitHub/Lab/BB for free, on a scale that we would not have, even with a >> full time sysadmin. Gratis. >> >> * Having one official repository instead of two is beneficial to most >> developers. A lot of people (most people replying on this thread), use >> Git in addition to SVN. Git also seems to be used more on validation >> infrastructure than SVN (no example was put forward on this thread, at >> least), due to the simplicity of controlling the repository and the >> tools available. Reports of how teams decided to script Git to have >> linear behaviour instead of falling back to SVN are enlightening. >> >> * Git developer tooling is a growing trend, while SVN tooling is >> dying. This is not just about GUIs, but repository management (GitHub, >> GitLab, BitBucket, etc versus SourceForge), bisects, branches, >> remotes, hooks, workdir, submodules and all the new development seem >> to be done on Git nowadays, not SVN. Windows may be an odd one related >> to GUIs, but Visual Studio has Git integration and I hear it's similar >> to the other MSVC VCSs. GitHub's desktop interface seems pretty cool, >> too. >> >> * Web repositories make it *a lot* easier to create add-hoc pull >> requests by non-developers, which could boost the number of >> contributions and future contributors, as well as external projects >> using LLVM components. >> >> * GitHub's SVN RW interface has been reported to work well for >> simpler projects, but we need a more thorough examination before >> declare it good enough for our purposes. >> >> * All reports on the thread pointed that downstream infrastructure is >> already using Git, so that's one less problem to worry about if we do >> move. >> >> >> The issues that were raised: >> >> * Co-dependent patches already break buildbots, but the sequential ID >> helps us identify and ignore. They will continue to break, even if we >> use git sub-modules, so that doesn't change much, but it will be >> harder to spot the issue. Server side hooks may help, as well as >> sub-modules. >> >> * Windows tooling may be an issue. There's a separate thread handling >> that part, so I won't cover it here. But I have to say it wasn't by a >> long shot a resonant problem. It may also have some problem with >> symlinks and in-tree checkouts (when interacting with llvm-projects >> and sub-modules). >> >> * Sub-modules may help with a lot of the current relationship we have >> inside the SVN repo, but it also has some problems. Namely they: >> - require a modern version of git (1.7/1.9), but that's 2013 onward. >> - may need additional server side scripting, but we can keep that >> in another repo to control it. >> - won't replace SVN's monotonic IDs, but do we *really* need them? >> Sub-modules have a bad fame, I gather, but people in the thread >> reported success on using it to build validation and release >> infrastructure as well as doing bisects, checking out code, etc. We >> probably need some documentation on how to do these things, as well as >> some scripts to help people work out the dependencies (or use them). >> >> * GitHub/Lab/BB are not perfect. They have some interface issues, but >> nothing more serious than we already have on our current >> infrastructure. We'll probably have to keep Bugzilla (as GitHub's own >> is really poor), but we can replace all our repos (SVN, Git), >> visualisation tools (ViewVC, Klaus) and Phabricator. >> >> Of all those issues, Windows tooling is a minor problem that shouldn't >> impact decision that much and sub-modules need a lot of ironing out to >> be considered good enough. My *personal* take away is that sub-modules >> (or an alternative server side solution) is the only strong technical >> issue we need to solve before we decide. >> >> >> How does a move look like? >> >> If we decide to move, the proposed schedule is something like this: >> >> STEP #1 : Pre Move >> >> 0. Update docs to mention the move, so people are aware the it's going on. >> 1. Register an official GitHub project with the LLVM foundation. >> 2. Setup another (read-only) mirror of llvm.org/git at this GitHub project >> 3. Make sure we have a la llvm-project-submodules setup in the >> official account. (Optional or necessary for the buildbots?) >> 4. Make sure bisecting with llvm-project-submodules is a good experience >> 5. Make sure no one has any blocker >> >> STEP #2 : Git Move >> >> 6. Update the buildbots to pick up updates and commits from the >> official git repository >> 7. Update Phabricator to pick up commits from the official git repository >> 8. Tell people living downstream to pick up commits from the official >> git repository >> 9. Give things time to settle. We could play some games like disabling >> the svn repository for a few hours on purpose so that people can test >> that their infrastructure has really become independent of the svn >> repository. >> >> ... Until this point nothing has changed for developers, it will just >> boil down to a lot of work for buildbot and other infrastructure >> owners ... >> >> STEP #3: Write Access Move >> >> 10. Collect peoples GitHub account information, give them push access. >> Ideally while still locking the GitHub repository somehow... >> 11. Switch SVN repository to read-only and allow pushes to the GitHub >> repository. >> 12. Mirror Git to SVN. >> >> STEP #4 : Post Move >> >> 13. Archive the SVN repository, if GitHub's SVN is good enough. >> 14. Review and update *all* LLVM documentation. >> 15. Review website links pointing to viewvc/klaus/phab etc. to point >> to GitHub instead. >> >> This is an adapted version of Matthias' and Mehdi's proposal, and it's >> not a final version in any way, but these are the basic things we need >> to worry about. >> >> >> Steps from here... >> >> Aaron has started the Windows tooling thread, and if you have any >> comments, please follow from there. I suggest sub-modules supporters >> to start another thread to iron that out separately. >> >> Once those issues are resolved, we shall start another thread to >> finally take a decision to move or not. >> >> Thanks everyone! >> >> cheers, >> --renato >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
