On 2 June 2016 at 08:48, Renato Golin via lldb-dev <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > 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.
I think Takumi's repository and script covers the real uses (bisection, principally) as well as we need and probably better than SVN. I suppose we might extend it to put an auto-incrementing revision number in the commit message too, but that's trivial. I think the responses in the thread have been heavily in favour (including after AAron's mention in LLVM weekly), so we should either get a more rigorous survey going as Tanya suggested (if we think it's useful) or get started on the actual move. I'm not really convinced that a survey would reach enough of a wider audience to affect our actions here, though I think the results would be very interesting anyway in the longer term (particularly on preferred workflows). > How does a move look like? > > If we decide to move, the proposed schedule is something like this: > > STEP #1 : Pre Move > > [...] > 1. Register an official GitHub project with the LLVM foundation. Chandler already did that: https://github.com/llvm. So we're one step in already! Tim. _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
