Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] Release Manager Transition

Thank you so much for all you've done as release manager, Hans. You've been doing a truly excellent job, and you've really made a difference. And thank you Tom for agreeing to take on this considerable but essential task! :) On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 05:13, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.

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

These changes and clarifications make sense to me. On Thu, 21 May 2020, 12:00 Tom Stellard via llvm-dev, < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to propose a few changes to the LLVM release process. The > current process is documented here: > https://llvm.org/docs/HowToReleaseLL

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

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 14:13, Sam McCall via cfe-dev wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 9:03 PM Tom Stellard 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 very positive, and I'm glad you're pushing

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

On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 09:45, Philip Reames via cfe-dev < 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 < > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 04/21/2020 03:36 PM, Richard Smith via llvm-dev wrote: >> > On

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

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 17:00, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < 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 < > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org > wrote: > > > > +1 to Jam

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

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 11:04, Philip Reames via cfe-dev < 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 problem that we will be paying for for many years. It's

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

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 13:57, Anton Korobeynikov via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > If we are reasonably certain that no one would be opening new issues on > GitHub while the migration is running... > And pull requests (the numbering is common for issues and pull > requests) as well.

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

210 issues have been filed on github so far. That's negligible compared to the total number we have, so a minor additional effort for those seems acceptable if we can't actually clean them out and reuse the numbers. So suppose we start with bugzilla issue #211 and migrate the issues to github one

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

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 12:31, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I wanted to continue discussing the plan to migrate from Bugzilla to > Github. > It was suggested that I start a new thread and give a summary of the > proposal > and what has changed since it was o

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] [RFC] LLVM bug lifecycle BoF - triaging

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, 10:47 David Greene via cfe-dev Richard Smith via cfe-dev writes: > > > In fact, I think it'd be entirely reasonable to subscribe cfe-dev to > > all clang bugs (fully subscribe -- email on all updates!). I don't see > > any reason whatsoever why a bug update should get *less*

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] [RFC] LLVM bug lifecycle BoF - triaging

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018, 08:12 via llvm-dev As an llvm-bugs subscriber, I would prefer *not* to have email for every > comment to every bug. That's what the CC list is for. > > If the admins guarantee that there is at least one auto-cc (who promises > to pay attention) for each component, I think tha

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [RFC] LLVM bug lifecycle BoF - triaging

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 05:10, Kristof Beyls via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 5 Oct 2018, at 07:04, Dean Michael Berris > wrote: > > Thank you for starting this conversation! I look forward to the results of > the BoF discussion summarised as well. > > > Dean, all, > > There was a

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] stable layout bug for imported record decls.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 17:08, Lang Hames via cfe-dev wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Perhaps a better approach would be to make the "minimal" mode for the >> ASTImporter provide an ExternalASTSource to lazily complete the AST as >> needed (thereby avoiding violating the invariant, because you would >> p

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] stable layout bug for imported record decls.

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 at 10:47, Lang Hames via cfe-dev wrote: > Hi clang-dev, lldb-dev, > > It looks like my clang commit r305850, which modified ASTImporter to > import method override tables from an external context, introduced a new > bug which manifests as incorrect vtable layouts for LLDB expre

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:45 PM Rafael Espíndola < > openmp-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > I don't think this is as obvious as you might think it is. We can >> happily >> > drop the "major version

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev" > > To: "llvm-dev" , "cfe-dev" < > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>, "LLDB Dev" , > > "openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)" > > Cc: "r jordans"

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] GitHub anyone?

On 6 Jun 2016 12:52 p.m., "Bruce Hoult via cfe-dev" wrote: > > I'd suggest a workflow like the following: > > - developer commits locally to a feature/bug dev branch. You can commit work in progress, experiments, have bad commit messages etc > > - developer commits locally to a feature/bug release

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] GitHub anyone?

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Manuel Jacob via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 2016-05-31 22:45, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: > >> On May 31, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Renato Golin >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 31 May 2016 at 21:28, Mehdi Amini wrote: >>> Ideally, I'd prefer the cross-

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] GitHub anyone?

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 1 June 2016 at 17:02, John Criswell wrote: > > Do you have a set of volunteers lined up to do such a migration? Getting > > people willing to do the migration will obviously be key, and that was > th