Dear All,
I've just heard that there's been a recent discussion on the IRC channel
about moving the LLVM source repository from CVS to Subversion (SVN) and
that this migration may happen "soon."
Is such a migration being planned, and if so, what is the timeframe?
How will the migration be performed? I and other LLVM users have
deadlines in the near future, so we would like to have input on when
such a migration will be performed.
-- John T.
Dear All,
I've just heard that there's been a recent discussion on the IRC channel
about moving the LLVM source repository from CVS to Subversion (SVN) and
that this migration may happen "soon."
Yes, its been talked about for ages and its time to do it. We've debated
the choice of repositories for a long time but since we want llvm-gcc
and llvm to be in the same (kind of ) repository, SVN is the only
choice. (Apple must use SVN for llvm-gcc). So, that narrowed the choices
for LLVM significantly.
We have a pending PR open for upgrading to SVN (PR1229). We should track
progress there.
Is such a migration being planned, and if so, what is the timeframe?
Sometime in March. We have requested an upgrade on Zion from SVN 1.1.4
to 1.4.3. That won't happen before March 9. You've also requested that
we delay this until after your deadline, March 18th, which we will do.
So, we should say that this is going to happen in the last week of March
or so.
How will the migration be performed?
After much testing. Anton and I are performing the conversion process,
finding bugs, and scripting it so that it is repeatable. There are
problematic ,v files in the repository (really old deleted ones in the
Attic) and the script will handle these. Additionally, we need to test
things like nightly tester, web site integration, etc.
We will do our best to limit the impact of the cut over to < 1 day.
The cvs server will continue to function in "read-only" mode for a
little while after the cut over. That is, only anonymous logins will be
permitted and all commit access will be moved from CVS to SVN. This will
allow some time for people to migrate their nightly testers, etc.,
without breaking horribly.
I and other LLVM users have
deadlines in the near future, so we would like to have input on when
such a migration will be performed.
After your deadlines are done 
Thanks Reid. I look forward to atomic commits
Will you let us all know when there is a finalish test repository so
we can play with it?
Andrew
I heard back from Dave Anderson earlier today. He said he will try to install the latest version of the svn suite by the end of next week. But holding off till the last week of March will be much appreciated! Thanks,
–Vikram
http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/
Hi,
Two things regarding the new subversion repository :-
1) Can you remove lib/CodeGen/ELF - which was a copy of the 'libelf' GNU library which got partially deleted.
2) Is there any way make the "Win32" Visual Studio 2003 a separate source repository, so we do not have the VS2003 code being distributed on every *nix platform. AND could we also have a Visual Studio 2005 release in parallel to the VS2003 again as a separate repository.
I dont know whether you can have merged source trees but different repositories with subversion.
Aaron
Two things regarding the new subversion repository :-
1) Can you remove lib/CodeGen/ELF - which was a copy of the 'libelf' GNU
library which got partially deleted.
I just removed it from the CVS repo.
2) Is there any way make the "Win32" Visual Studio 2003 a separate source
repository, so we do not have the VS2003 code being distributed on every
*nix platform. AND could we also have a Visual Studio 2005 release in
parallel to the VS2003 again as a separate repository.
What is the motivation for this? The Win32 directory doesn't have VS2003 source code AFAIK,
-Chris
No just the VS2003 project and solution files and a about 30 sub directories which are not required on *nix platforms. So it would be good to have the "win32" files in a separate repository if possible. I thought this would be a convient time to do this.
I would like a VS2005 release of LLVM as well as the VS2003 for completeness, as VS2003 is really old hat now.
Aaron
What is the motivation for this? The Win32 directory doesn't have VS2003
source code AFAIK,No just the VS2003 project and solution files and a about 30 sub directories
which are not required on *nix platforms. So it would be good to have the
"win32" files in a separate repository if possible. I thought this would be
a convient time to do this.
We also have xcode projects. If you don't want to check them out and update them, with svn, you can use 'svn switch' on those directories.
I would like a VS2005 release of LLVM as well as the VS2003 for
completeness, as VS2003 is really old hat now.
VS2005 will upgrade the project file.
-Chris
What is the motivation for this? The Win32 directory doesn't have VS2003
source code AFAIK,No just the VS2003 project and solution files and a about 30 sub directories
which are not required on *nix platforms. So it would be good to have the
"win32" files in a separate repository if possible. I thought this would be
a convient time to do this.We also have xcode projects. If you don't want to check them out and
update them, with svn, you can use 'svn switch' on those directories.
Okay. Still think a separate repository would be a good idea. A bit of work to implement but would be a good idea as every *nix user has to implement a 'svn switch' putting the onus on them rather than on the Windows user.
I would like a VS2005 release of LLVM as well as the VS2003 for
completeness, as VS2003 is really old hat now.VS2005 will upgrade the project file.
I realize that but VS2003 is really old now and it would be good to support VS2005 properly for LLVM 2.0.
Aaron
I think you are mistakenly assuming that we aim to serve UNIX users at the expense of win32 users. Why make life harder for people on win32? Perhaps we should move all the unix makefiles to a separate repo?
-Chris
>> We also have xcode projects. If you don't want to check them out and
>> update them, with svn, you can use 'svn switch' on those directories.
>
> Okay. Still think a separate repository would be a good idea. A bit of work
> to implement but would be a good idea as every *nix user has to implement a
> 'svn switch' putting the onus on them rather than on the Windows user.I think you are mistakenly assuming that we aim to serve UNIX users at the
expense of win32 users. Why make life harder for people on win32?
Perhaps we should move all the unix makefiles to a separate repo?
I too am against this split. The "llvm" repository should contain all
that is necessary to build llvm on any platform and supporting whatever
build environments are necessary. If someone wanted to add a "borland"
directory, I wouldn't be opposed. About the only reason to remove these
directories is if they got so stale as to be unusable. But even in that
case, we wouldn't move them to a new repository, just delete (or
replace) them.
Reid.
Chris wrote:
Chris wrote:
> > Okay. Still think a separate repository would be a good idea. A bit
> > of work to implement but would be a good idea as every *nix user has
> > to implement a 'svn switch' putting the onus on them rather than on
> > the Windows user.
>
> I think you are mistakenly assuming that we aim to serve UNIX users at
> the expense of win32 users. Why make life harder for people on win32?
> Perhaps we should move all the unix makefiles to a separate repo?Besides, even a "nothing but Unix" developer should have the win32
source as part of their tree so `grep -r', etc., takes it into account
when planning changes.
True, but the directories in question don't contain source code. The
only platform specific code is (supposed to be) in lib/System. The
xcode and win32 directories only contain project files and other build
related files for non-make builds.
Reid.
Okay, bad idea.
The last post got delayed after posting, so please ignore it.
Aaron