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

On 10/15/2019 09:44 PM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 9:33 PM Tom Stellard > wrote: > > On 10/15/2019 09:24 PM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > > Hi Tom. > > > > One issue with this is that we don't have a clear "ordering" from > linear revis

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

On 10/15/2019 09:24 PM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > Hi Tom. > > One issue with this is that we don't have a clear "ordering" from linear > revision numbers from these emails. Have we looked into continuing to > generate our own emails per commits instead so that we control the format? > This actually

[lldb-dev] Mailing list changes this week

Hi, We are going to start to switching from SVN commit emails to GitHub commit emails this week. The only real change you should notice is that the revision number in the subject will be replaced with a git hash and the diff links in the email will point to GitHub. Otherwise the content and form

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] GitHub Migration Schedule and Plans

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:15 PM Jordan Rupprecht via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:29 PM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 10/10/2019 11:40 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:59 AM Tom S

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

On 10/15/2019 11:51 AM, Lei Huang wrote: > On 10/15/2019 12:20 AM, Roman Lebedev wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:14 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new >>> thread to get everyone's input on what to do ab

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

On 10/15/2019 12:20 AM, Roman Lebedev wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:14 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new >> thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script >> after the GitHub migrat

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

Hi Paul, I'm not to strongly opposing to anything, and I don't want to be the noisy one in the corner. :) The only point I have is that it's easier to control the environment in the TS and e2e tests are supposed to catch higher level problems that cannot be handled in Clang. We already have test

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

> -Original Message- > From: cfe-dev On Behalf Of Renato Golin > via cfe-dev > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 11:24 AM > To: David Greene > Cc: llvm-...@lists.llvm.org; cfe-...@lists.llvm.org; Gerolf Hoflehner > ; openmp-...@lists.llvm.org; lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [cfe-de

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

I’d like to see it go away. For better and for worse, git is feature rich and that makes maintaining a wrapper script difficult. Personally speaking, I had to fix a git-llvm bug recently because it made flimsy assumptions about git remote names and how upstream tracking repositories work. > On

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

Hi, I mentioned this in my email last week, but I wanted to start a new thread to get everyone's input on what to do about the git-llvm script after the GitHub migration. The original plan was to require the use of the git-llvm script when committing to GitHub even after the migration was complet