Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: New Automated Release Workflow (using Issues and Pull Requests)

On 12/20/21 3:24 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev wrote: On 12/20/21 09:16, Tom Stellard wrote: On 12/18/21 15:04, David Blaikie wrote: On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 6:38 PM Tom Stellard > wrote:     On 12/17/21 16:47, David Blaikie wrote: > Sounds pretty good to me

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

Since I think we're risking confusion on the point here, let me clarify that at least my response to this thread should not be read as opposition (or support) for a migration to github.  I am expressing no opinion on that matter.  I see the primary point being discussed in this thread being the

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

+1 to Renato's response here.  I had the same thought, and Renato phrased it much better than I'd have managed. Philip On 10/5/21 9:47 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 17:06, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: - Any other informati

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Mailing List Status Update

On 6/21/21 12:53 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: On Jun 9, 2021, at 10:50 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Specific to the dev lists, I'm very hesitant about moving from mailing lists to discourse.  Why? Well, the first and most basic is I'm worried about havi

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing List Status Update

On 6/15/21 11:15 AM, Matt P. Dziubinski via llvm-dev wrote: On 6/15/2021 19:41, David Blaikie wrote:     When     you open a page on https://llvm.discourse.group     it doesn't load (or     show) the entire thread on one page by default but instead     progressive

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Mailing List Status Update

I have concerns about this proposal.  Those concerns aren't necessarily unaddressable, but I do want to share them.  My concerns fall into two broad categories. The first category is the process one.  My understanding when the LLVM foundation was established was that the role of the foundation

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

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 scop

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

In my view, this email is really too different topics.  Given that, my response is split into two parts. First, should we make phabricator our default for code review?  I am not opposed to this.  I don't particular support it either, but I would not spend time arguing against it.  I would sugg

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Release process changes

All of this sounds reasonable to me, but we don't directly follow the upstream release cadence so I'm an interested observer at most. Philip On 5/21/20 11:59 AM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev wrote: Hi, I would like to propose a few changes to the LLVM release process. The current process is doc

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues [UPDATED]

On 4/25/20 10:02 PM, Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev wrote: On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:04 PM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: On 04/24/2020 03:24 AM, Sam McCall wrote: > clangd's experience using github issues to track bugs (in a separate repo) has been

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues [UPDATED]

On 4/22/20 2:35 PM, Richard Smith wrote: On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 09:45, Philip Reames via cfe-dev mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: On 4/21/20 6:50 PM, Richard Smith wrote: On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 17:00, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues [UPDATED]

On 4/21/20 6:50 PM, Richard Smith wrote: On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 17:00, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: On 04/21/2020 03:36 PM, Richard Smith via llvm-dev wrote: > On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 11:04, Philip Reames via cfe-dev mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues [UPDATED]

On 4/21/20 3:36 PM, Richard Smith wrote: On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 11:04, Philip Reames via cfe-dev mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: +1 to James's take I'd prefer simplicity of implementation over perfection here. If we end up with two different bug numbering systems, that's a pr

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues [UPDATED]

+1 to James's take I'd prefer simplicity of implementation over perfection here. Philip On 4/20/20 4:08 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: In a previous discussion, one other suggestion had been to migrate all the bugzilla bugs to a separate initially-private "bug archive" repository in g

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Using GitHub Actions for CI testing on the release/* branches

+1, I'll be really curious to know how this works out. Philip On 11/11/19 4:32 PM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to start using GitHub Actions[1] for CI testing on the release/* > branches. As far as I know we don't have any buildbots listening to the > release branches,

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: End-to-end testing

On 10/9/19 6:25 PM, David Greene wrote: Philip Reames via cfe-dev writes: A challenge we already have - as in, I've broken these tests and had to fix them - is that an end to end test which checks either IR or assembly ends up being extraordinarily fragile.  Completely unrelated profitable tr

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

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

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing list changes this week

On 10/16/19 5:51 PM, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev wrote: On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 5:46 PM Tom Stellard > wrote: On 10/16/2019 07:23 AM, Robinson, Paul wrote: > +1.  And put it in the email (subject?).  While it’s possible to derive a count from a hash manua

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: End-to-end testing

+1 to the points made here.  Renato very nicely explained the tradeoffs involved. On 10/10/19 3:29 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 22:26, David Greene wrote: That would be a shame. Where is test-suite run right now? Are there bots? How are regressions reported?

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: End-to-end testing

On 10/8/19 9:49 AM, David Greene via llvm-dev wrote: [ I am initially copying only a few lists since they seem like the most impacted projects and I didn't want to spam all the mailing lists. Please let me know if other lists should be included. ] I submitted D68230 for review but this i

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [Github] RFC: linear history vs merge commits

Strongly in favor of #1. If we decide to move away from #1, I strongly believe it should be done well after the github migration.  (i.e. lets not change everything at once!) Philip On 1/29/19 2:33 PM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev wrote: Hi, As part of the migration of LLVM's source code to gith

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

+1. On 06/30/2016 04:01 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote: - Original Message - From: "Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev" To: "Chandler Carruth" Cc: "llvm-dev" , "cfe-dev" , "openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)" , "LLDB" Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 5:34:13 PM Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] FY