[lldb-dev] [Bug 28091] New: Build docs shouldn

2016-06-12 Thread via lldb-dev
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28091

Bug ID: 28091
   Summary: Build docs shouldn
   Product: lldb
   Version: unspecified
  Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
  Severity: enhancement
  Priority: P
 Component: All Bugs
  Assignee: lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
  Reporter: man...@mozilla.com
CC: llvm-b...@lists.llvm.org
Classification: Unclassified

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev


[lldb-dev] [Bug 28092] New: Build docs shouldn't use relative paths

2016-06-12 Thread via lldb-dev
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28092

Bug ID: 28092
   Summary: Build docs shouldn't use relative paths
   Product: lldb
   Version: unspecified
  Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
  Severity: enhancement
  Priority: P
 Component: All Bugs
  Assignee: lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
  Reporter: man...@mozilla.com
CC: llvm-b...@lists.llvm.org
Classification: Unclassified

http://lldb.llvm.org/build.html#BuildingLldbOnLinux has a couple of places
where it says "cmake .." instead of giving a path relative to $llvm or $lldb.
It actually recommends keeping the build dir in $llvm/../llvm-build in the
previous section, so `cmake ..` won't even work in the recommended version.


Patch attached.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev


[lldb-dev] [Bug 28092] Build docs shouldn't use relative paths

2016-06-12 Thread via lldb-dev
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28092

Manish Goregaokar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org |man...@mozilla.com

--- Comment #1 from Manish Goregaokar  ---
Created attachment 16517
  --> https://llvm.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=16517&action=edit
Patch

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev


Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers

2016-06-12 Thread Dimitry Andric via lldb-dev
On 10 Jun 2016, at 22:38, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev  
wrote:
> It's time to start planning for the 3.9 release.
> 
> Please let me know if you'd like to help providing binaries and
> testing for your favourite platform.

As usual, I volunteer for providing FreeBSD binaries and testing.



> I propose the following schedule:
> 
> - 18 July: Create the release branch; build and test RC1 soon thereafter.
> 
> - 1 August: Tag, build and test RC2. Any unfinished features need to
> be turned off by now. As we get closer to the release, the bar for
> merging patches rises.
> 
> - 22 August: Tag 3.9.0-final. The release ships when binaries are ready.

I would put three weeks between RC1 and RC2, to allow more last-minute
bugs to be fixed, and two weeks between RC2 and final, but it is always
little arbitrary.


> Also, I have three more questions for the community:
> 
> 1) Right after the branch, the version number of the trunk will be
> incremented. I assume this means bumping the major version number,
> taking us to 4.0? IIUC, that's what happened after 1.9 and 2.9.

4.0.  Since gcc is already at 7.0, we need to catch up! ;-)


> 2) Following up on the May thread about the release process [1], I'd
> like to make the schedule we've followed for the last few years more
> official by posting somewhere on the web page that we're committed to
> shipping two major releases per year: one in early March (branching
> mid-January), and one early September (branching mid-July), usually
> with one (or sometimes two) "dot" releases in between.

Having predictable release schedules is nice.  If everybody knows the
tree should be in fairly good shape at the point of branching, any heavy
refactoring can be postponed until after such branching (or preferably,
until after the actual release).


> 3) Another follow-up from that thread: it's usually the same people
> who test the releases for their platform. Rather than asking everyone
> each time, I'd like to make a list of who's responsible for each
> platform and put that on the web page. Testers can still sign-up or
> resign as they like, of course. Would you testers be OK with this?

You can put me up for the FreeBSD platform, obviously.

-Dimitry



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev