On 31 May 2016 at 12:31, Renato Golin via cfe-dev
wrote:
> What do people think? Any issue not covered that we should?
I'm in favour of the move. Git-svn just about works most of the time,
but I find it makes committing to release branches particularly
painful. It also randomly corrupts its datab
On 31 May 2016 at 13:45, Mehdi Amini via lldb-dev
wrote:
> Apparently I wasn't very clear: llvm and clang (and the others projects)
> would be simple decoupled, individual git repositories. You would be able to
> check them out however you want and commit to them individually.
> There would be a
On 1 June 2016 at 10:12, Dan Liew via cfe-dev wrote:
> the directories for each submodule will stay empty. Thus it isn't
> necessary to pull down all the sources when using git submodules.
> This would need support from the build system though. I'm not sure
> what the build system would do right n
On 2 June 2016 at 08:48, Renato Golin via lldb-dev
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
On 27 June 2016 at 22:55, NAKAMURA Takumi via cfe-dev
wrote:
> It has also submodules.
> https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project-submodule
>
> Both llvm-project(-tree) and (-submodule) have refs/notes/commits.
I really like this too, and think Takumi has basically solved 90% of
the problem f
> That makes it fragile, and that’s why I disagree with your “90% done”
> assessment.
> What if the service behing the hook is down for a few days?
In the long-term view, a pretty trivial catch-up script ought to be
able to synthesize a sane history after any amount of down-time.
People could eve
On 1 July 2016 at 08:18, Tom Honermann via lldb-dev
wrote:
> On 6/30/2016 5:20 PM, Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev wrote:
> We're using tags in this manner for our internal repos and LLVM/Clang
> mirrors and haven't experienced any problems. We're at ~50k tags for
> our most used repo, so not quite at
On 7 July 2016 at 17:56, Chris Matthews via llvm-dev
wrote:
> With both llvmlab and LNT, once you get to a range of IDs, it is needs to be
> easy to find out what commits or commit range those IDs map to.
Making no comment on how easy or hard it will actually be, doesn't it
just have to be possib
Hi,
On 5 June 2018 at 03:13, Giannis Zamanis via lldb-dev
wrote:
> I have tried using zero-sized type array as
> the typical parameter in the function definition, but when i call the
> function with a normal-sized array as argument it throws error due to
> mismatch in types. I can't find a workar
