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 <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> 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 <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>> 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 > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list cfe-...@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
