How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev
Hi,

I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
after the GitHub migration.

The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.

Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.

With this new development, the question I have is when should the
git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we
wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?

Thanks,
Tom




 
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:14 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
> after the GitHub migration.
>
> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.
>
> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.

What about prevention of new branch creation?
From the bugzilla disscussion, i gather that is not possible to do via github?

> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we
> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
Roman

> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev
I say retire it instantly.

> On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
> after the GitHub migration.
>
> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.
>
> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
>
> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we
> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev
I’d like to see it go away. For better and for worse, git is feature rich and that makes maintaining a wrapper script difficult. Personally speaking, I had to fix a git-llvm bug recently because it made flimsy assumptions about git remote names and how upstream tracking repositories work.

> On Oct 15, 2019, at 10:47 AM, Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I say retire it instantly.
>
>> On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
>> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
>> after the GitHub migration.
>>
>> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
>> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
>> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
>> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.
>>
>> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
>> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
>> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
>>
>> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
>> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
>> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we
>> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev
On 10/15/2019 12:20 AM, Roman Lebedev wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:14 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
>> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
>> after the GitHub migration.
>>
>> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
>> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
>> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
>> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.
>>
>> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
>> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
>> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
>
> What about prevention of new branch creation?
> From the bugzilla disscussion, i gather that is not possible to do via github?
>

Correct, but the git-llvm script can only prevent people from creating new
branches if they use the script.  Someone could still create a new branch
using `git push`.   We can use branch protections to prevent pushing to
existing branches but not for preventing new ones.

-Tom



>> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
>> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
>> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we
>> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
> Roman
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev
On 10/15/2019 12:20 AM, Roman Lebedev wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:14 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
>> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
>> after the GitHub migration.
>>
>> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
>> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
>> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
>> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.
>>
>> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
>> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
>> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
>
> What about prevention of new branch creation?
> From the bugzilla disscussion, i gather that is not possible to do via github?
>

Correct, but the git-llvm script can only prevent people from creating new
branches if they use the script.  Someone could still create a new branch
using `git push`.   We can use branch protections to prevent pushing to
existing branches but not for preventing new ones.

-Tom

Maybe I missed something, but the git doc seem to indicate we can setup a server
side pre-receive hook.  Can we not use this to prevent users from creating a new branch?
 
- Lei

>> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
>> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
>> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we
>> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
> Roman
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev 

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev 

 
 


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev
On 10/15/2019 11:51 AM, Lei Huang wrote:

> On 10/15/2019 12:20 AM, Roman Lebedev wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:14 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
>>> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
>>> after the GitHub migration.
>>>
>>> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
>>> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
>>> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
>>> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.
>>>
>>> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
>>> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
>>> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
>>
>> What about prevention of new branch creation?
>> From the bugzilla disscussion, i gather that is not possible to do via github?
>>
>
> Correct, but the git-llvm script can only prevent people from creating new
> branches if they use the script.  Someone could still create a new branch
> using `git push`.   We can use branch protections to prevent pushing to
> existing branches but not for preventing new ones.
>
> -Tom
>
> Maybe I missed something, but the git doc seem to indicate we can setup a server
> side pre-receive hook.  Can we not use this to prevent users from creating a new branch?
>

GitHub only supports pre-receive hooks in their Enterprise Server edition,
which isn't a good option for us, because we would need to self-host it.

-Tom

 

> - Lei
>
>>> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
>>> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
>>> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we
>>> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tom
>> Roman
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev 
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev 
>  
>  
>

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I say retire it instantly.
+1. It has never been a real requirement to use the script. Using native svn is still viable until the point of the migration.
 

> On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
> after the GitHub migration.
>
> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.
>
> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
>
> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we
> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev


On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:26 PM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I say retire it instantly.
+1. It has never been a real requirement to use the script. Using native svn is still viable until the point of the migration.

It was a requirement for the "linear history" feature. With GitHub providing this now, I'm also +1 on retiring the tool unless there is a another use that can be articulated for it?

-- 
Mehdi

 
 

> On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
> after the GitHub migration.
>
> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.
>
> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
>
> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we
> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev


On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 9:26 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:26 PM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I say retire it instantly.
+1. It has never been a real requirement to use the script. Using native svn is still viable until the point of the migration.

It was a requirement for the "linear history" feature. With GitHub providing this now, I'm also +1 on retiring the tool unless there is a another use that can be articulated for it?

I believe one thing mentioned was that if the tool was required, it could be used to enforce a do-not-branch policy. That's the thing I've seen discussed so far. (& questions as to whether that's worth it, whether there's other ways to enforce it, etc)

- Dave 

-- 
Mehdi

 
 

> On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
> after the GitHub migration.
>
> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.
>
> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
>
> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we
> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev


On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:29 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 9:26 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:26 PM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I say retire it instantly.
+1. It has never been a real requirement to use the script. Using native svn is still viable until the point of the migration.

It was a requirement for the "linear history" feature. With GitHub providing this now, I'm also +1 on retiring the tool unless there is a another use that can be articulated for it?

I believe one thing mentioned was that if the tool was required, it could be used to enforce a do-not-branch policy. That's the thing I've seen discussed so far. (& questions as to whether that's worth it, whether there's other ways to enforce it, etc)

I think at this point it might be better to invest effort in tooling for GitHub to prevent unwanted branches.  We have a GitHub integration currently which auto-rejects pull-requests, I think we might be able to do something similar to protect against undesired branches (don't know this for sure yet).  This work would happen after the cutover though.

-Mike
 
 
- Dave 

-- 
Mehdi

 
 

> On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
> after the GitHub migration.
>
> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.
>
> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
>
> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we
> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev

I'm also a strong proponent of not requiring the wrapper.

The linear history piece was important enough to make the cost worth it.  The extra branches piece really isn't.  If someone creates a branch that's not supposed to exist, we just delete it.  No big deal.  It will happen, but the cost is so low I don't worry about it.

There's a bunch of things in our developer policy we don't enforce except through social means.  I don't see any reason why the "no branches" thing needs to be special. 

If we really want some automation, a simple script that polls for new branches every five minutes and deletes them unless on a while list would work just fine.  :)

Philip

On 10/15/19 9:26 PM, Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev wrote:


On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:26 PM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I say retire it instantly.
+1. It has never been a real requirement to use the script. Using native svn is still viable until the point of the migration.

It was a requirement for the "linear history" feature. With GitHub providing this now, I'm also +1 on retiring the tool unless there is a another use that can be articulated for it?

-- 
Mehdi

 
 

> On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
> after the GitHub migration.
>
> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.
>
> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
>
> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we
> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev


On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:17 AM Philip Reames via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm also a strong proponent of not requiring the wrapper.

The linear history piece was important enough to make the cost worth it.  The extra branches piece really isn't.  If someone creates a branch that's not supposed to exist, we just delete it.  No big deal.  It will happen, but the cost is so low I don't worry about it.

There's a bunch of things in our developer policy we don't enforce except through social means.  I don't see any reason why the "no branches" thing needs to be special. 

If we really want some automation, a simple script that polls for new branches every five minutes and deletes them unless on a while list would work just fine.  :)


Yeah, that about sums up my feelings as well.
 

Philip

On 10/15/19 9:26 PM, Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev wrote:


On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:26 PM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I say retire it instantly.
+1. It has never been a real requirement to use the script. Using native svn is still viable until the point of the migration.

It was a requirement for the "linear history" feature. With GitHub providing this now, I'm also +1 on retiring the tool unless there is a another use that can be articulated for it?

-- 
Mehdi

 
 

> On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:14 AM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new
> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script
> after the GitHub migration.
>
> The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when
> committing to GitHub even after the migration was complete.
> The reason we decided to do this was so that we could prevent developers
> from accidentally pushing merge commits and making the history non-linear.
>
> Just in the last week, the GitHub team completed the "Require Linear
> History" branch protection, which means we can now enforce linear
> history server side and do not need the git-llvm script to do this.
>
> With this new development, the question I have is when should the
> git-llvm script become optional?  Should we make it optional immediately,
> so that developers can push directly using vanilla git from day 1, or should we
> wait a few weeks/months until things have stabilized to make it optional?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev
I think it's okay to auto-delete these unexpected branches by either
cron job or GitHub webhook. But should the system send email to those
branch creators notifying that their branch has been removed and
attach the patch file? Or we need to clarify this in project's README
or GitHub's project description.

Regards,
Qiu Chaofan
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev
I think it's a "Cross that bridge when we come to it" 

See if manual enforcement is sufficient - if it becomes a real problem that's too annoying to handle manually/culturally, then assess what sort of automation/enforcement seems appropriate for the situation we are in at that time.

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:42 PM Qiu Chaofan via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think it's okay to auto-delete these unexpected branches by either
cron job or GitHub webhook. But should the system send email to those
branch creators notifying that their branch has been removed and
attach the patch file? Or we need to clarify this in project's README
or GitHub's project description.

Regards,
Qiu Chaofan
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev