[lldb-dev] [Bug 44864] lldb -python-path (with lldb installed using apt-get install lldb-9) returns an incorrect path

2021-05-17 Thread via lldb-dev 
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44864

Wolfgang Hänsch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|FIXED   |---
Version|unspecified |12.0
 Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
 CC||wh...@yahoo.com

--- Comment #2 from Wolfgang Hänsch  ---
Hello,
I have the same problem with "lldb-12 --python-path". 
It returns "/usr/lib/lib/python3/dist-packages". I found the package at
"/usr/lib/llvm-12/lib/python3/dist-packages".

lldb version 12.0.1
Linux 5.8.0-53-generic #60~20.04.1-Ubuntu SMP 

Best regards
Wolfgang

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

[lldb-dev] [RFC] Deprecate pre-commit email code reviews in favor of Phabricator

2021-05-17 Thread Krzysztof Parzyszek via lldb-dev 
This is a revision of the previous RFC[1].  This RFC limits the scope to 
pre-commit reviews only.



Statement:

Our current code review policy states[2]:

"Code reviews are conducted, in order of preference, on our web-based 
code-review tool (see Code Reviews with Phabricator), by email on the relevant 
project's commit mailing list, on the project's development list, or on the bug 
tracker."

This proposal is to limit pre-commit code reviews only to Phabricator.  This 
would apply to all projects in the LLVM monorepo.  With the change in effect, 
the amended policy would read:

"Pre-commit code reviews are conducted on our web-based code-review tool (see 
Code Reviews with Phabricator).  Post-commit reviews are conducted, in order of 
preference, on Phabricator, by email on the relevant project's commit mailing 
list, on the project's development list, or on the bug tracker."



Current situation:

  1.  In a recent llvm-dev thread[3], Christian Kühnel pointed out that 
pre-commit code reviews rarely originate via an email (most are started on 
Phabricator), although, as others pointed out, email responses to an ongoing 
review are not uncommon.  (That thread also contains examples of mishaps 
related to the email-Phabricator interactions, or email handling itself.)
  2.  We have Phabricator patches that automatically apply email comments to 
the Phabricator reviews, although reportedly this functionality is not fully 
reliable[4,5].  This can cause review comments to be lost in the email traffic.



Benefits:

  1.  Single way of doing pre-commit code reviews: these code reviews are a key 
part of the development process, and having one way of performing them would 
make the process clearer and unambiguous.
  2.  Review authors and reviewers would only need to monitor one source of 
comments without the fear that a review comment may end up overlooked.
  3.  This change simply codifies an existing practice.



Concerns:

  1.  Because of the larger variety, email clients may offer better 
accessibility options than web browsers.





[1] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-May/150344.html

[2] https://llvm.org/docs/CodeReview.html#what-tools-are-used-for-code-review

[3] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150129.html

[4] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150136.html

[5] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150139.html





--

Krzysztof Parzyszek  kparz...@quicinc.com   AI 
tools development


___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [RFC] Deprecate pre-commit email code reviews in favor of Phabricator

2021-05-17 Thread Philip Reames via lldb-dev 
Seems reasonable to me.  I'm not strongly in favor, but since I was 
strongly opposed to the previous proposal, a "don't object" seemed 
reasonable to share.


Philip

On 5/17/21 11:12 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev wrote:


This is a revision of the previous RFC[1].  This RFC limits the scope 
to pre-commit reviews only.


*Statement:*

Our current code review policy states[2]:

“Code reviews are conducted, in order of preference, on our web-based 
code-review tool (see Code Reviews with Phabricator), by email on the 
relevant project’s commit mailing list, on the project’s development 
list, or on the bug tracker.”


This proposal is to limit pre-commit code reviews only to 
Phabricator.  This would apply to all projects in the LLVM monorepo.  
With the change in effect, the amended policy would read:


“Pre-commit code reviews are conducted on our web-based code-review 
tool (see Code Reviews with Phabricator).  Post-commit reviews are 
conducted, in order of preference, on Phabricator, by email on the 
relevant project’s commit mailing list, on the project’s development 
list, or on the bug tracker.”


*Current situation:*

 1. In a recent llvm-dev thread[3], Christian Kühnel pointed out that
pre-commit code reviews rarely originate via an email (most are
started on Phabricator), although, as others pointed out, email
responses to an ongoing review are not uncommon.  (That thread
also contains examples of mishaps related to the email-Phabricator
interactions, or email handling itself.)
 2. We have Phabricator patches that automatically apply email
comments to the Phabricator reviews, although reportedly this
functionality is not fully reliable[4,5].  This can cause review
comments to be lost in the email traffic.

*Benefits:*

 1. Single way of doing pre-commit code reviews: these code reviews
are a key part of the development process, and having one way of
performing them would make the process clearer and unambiguous.
 2. Review authors and reviewers would only need to monitor one source
of comments without the fear that a review comment may end up
overlooked.
 3. This changesimply codifies an existing practice.

*Concerns:*

 1. Because of the larger variety, email clients may offer better
accessibility options than web browsers.

[1] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-May/150344.html 



[2] 
https://llvm.org/docs/CodeReview.html#what-tools-are-used-for-code-review 



[3] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150129.html 



[4] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150136.html 



[5] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150139.html 



--

Krzysztof Parzyszek kparz...@quicinc.com 
   AI tools development



___
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-...@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [RFC] Deprecate pre-commit email code reviews in favor of Phabricator

2021-05-17 Thread David Blaikie via lldb-dev 
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:12 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek via cfe-dev <
cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> This is a revision of the previous RFC[1].  This RFC limits the scope to
> pre-commit reviews only.
>
>
>
> *Statement:*
>
> Our current code review policy states[2]:
>
> “Code reviews are conducted, in order of preference, on our web-based
> code-review tool (see Code Reviews with Phabricator), by email on the
> relevant project’s commit mailing list, on the project’s development list,
> or on the bug tracker.”
>
> This proposal is to limit pre-commit code reviews only to Phabricator.
> This would apply to all projects in the LLVM monorepo.  With the change in
> effect, the amended policy would read:
>
> “Pre-commit code reviews are conducted on our web-based code-review tool
> (see Code Reviews with Phabricator).
>
I'm with you here ^, this seems to document/formalize existing practice -
though does this accurately reflect all the projects in the mororepo? I get
the impression that mlir, maybe flang, etc might be doing reviews
differently?

> Post-commit reviews are conducted, in order of preference, on Phabricator,
>
This still seems like a change in practice that I'm not in favor of,
personally - due to the current divergence between email and phab review
feedback. Yes, this would be one way to unify it - but I'm not sure it's
necessarily the best one.

I'd suggest leaving this to a separate proposal so as not to
complicate/muddy the waters of the formalization of pre-commit review
practice.

> by email on the relevant project’s commit mailing list, on the project’s
> development list, or on the bug tracker.”
>
>
>
> *Current situation:*
>
>1. In a recent llvm-dev thread[3], Christian Kühnel pointed out that
>pre-commit code reviews rarely originate via an email (most are started on
>Phabricator), although, as others pointed out, email responses to an
>ongoing review are not uncommon.  (That thread also contains examples of
>mishaps related to the email-Phabricator interactions, or email handling
>itself.)
>2. We have Phabricator patches that automatically apply email comments
>to the Phabricator reviews, although reportedly this functionality is not
>fully reliable[4,5].  This can cause review comments to be lost in the
>email traffic.
>
>
>
> *Benefits:*
>
>1. Single way of doing pre-commit code reviews: these code reviews are
>a key part of the development process, and having one way of performing
>them would make the process clearer and unambiguous.
>2. Review authors and reviewers would only need to monitor one source
>of comments without the fear that a review comment may end up overlooked.
>3. This change simply codifies an existing practice.
>
>
>
> *Concerns:*
>
>1. Because of the larger variety, email clients may offer better
>accessibility options than web browsers.
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-May/150344.html
>
> [2]
> https://llvm.org/docs/CodeReview.html#what-tools-are-used-for-code-review
>
> [3] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150129.html
>
> [4] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150136.html
>
> [5] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150139.html
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Krzysztof Parzyszek  kparz...@quicinc.com   AI tools development
>
>
> ___
> 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