On Jun 2, 2016, at 11:01 AM, d...@cray.com wrote: > > What exactly is the concrete benefit of monotonically increasing > revision numbers? It's completely foreign to git's architecture. > > Putting this requirement on git is going to severely limit how the > history is allowed to look. Maybe that's what people want, I don't > know. We certainly haven't missed them since moving to git.
I think we *want* to severely limit how history is allowed to look. We don’t want the entire development history of your long-lived branch coming to mainline. When a patch is accepted to an llvm.org repository, it is committed as an atomic unit. It is expected to be reviewed (pre or post), include testcases, and uphold the standards of the project *in that unit*. There is no value in providing additional details. If there were, then the patch should be committed as a linear series of independent pieces, each of which lives up to the project’s standards. -Chris _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
