Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Git Move: GitHub+modules proposal

On 28 June 2016 at 06:55, NAKAMURA Takumi wrote: > It has also submodules. > https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project-submodule > > Both llvm-project(-tree) and (-submodule) have refs/notes/commits. Nice! Can you try a server hook that will add an auto-increment number from submodules commits

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

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote: >>> Eh, if we're switching to a completely unrelated versioning scheme, it >>> doesn't seem completely unreasonable. >>> >>> We could also count how many time-based releases we have had and u

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Git Move: GitHub+modules proposal

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 5:21 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev > wrote: > > On 28 June 2016 at 06:55, NAKAMURA Takumi wrote: >> It has also submodules. >> https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project-submodule >> >> Both llvm-project(-tree) and (-submodule) have refs/notes/commits. > > Nice! Can y

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Git Move: GitHub+modules proposal

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:55 AM, NAKAMURA Takumi via llvm-dev > wrote: > > It has also submodules. > https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project-submodule > > > Both llvm-project(-tree) and (-submodule) have refs/notes/commits. This is

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Git Move: GitHub+modules proposal

On 27 June 2016 at 22:55, NAKAMURA Takumi via cfe-dev wrote: > It has also submodules. > https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project-submodule > > Both llvm-project(-tree) and (-submodule) have refs/notes/commits. I really like this too, and think Takumi has basically solved 90% of the problem f

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

> -Original Message- > From: hwennb...@google.com [mailto:hwennb...@google.com] On Behalf Of Hans > Wennborg > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > I still don’t understand what “confusion” could be caused by going from > 3.9 to 4.0. Could someone please elaborate on

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

> I think the main issue (besides users asking what's the big change in > 4.0, which I agree is not a big problem) is that the bitcode > compatibility policy is tied to the major version number. It is tied in saying we *can* drop compatibility, not that we will. If we still support loading 3.0 bit

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-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 12:22 PM Rafael Espíndola wrote: > > I think the main issue (besides users asking what's the big change in > > 4.0, which I agree is not a big problem) is that the bitcode > > compatibility policy is tied to the major version number. > > It is tied in saying we *can* drop

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

> I don't think this is as obvious as you might think it is. We can happily > drop the "major version equals bitcode compatibility" implicit promise if we > want, but it's been there for a while and will need some messaging as to the > actual promises here and what we'll do to fulfill and what we m

Re: [lldb-dev] [Openmp-dev] [cfe-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 12:45 PM Rafael Espíndola wrote: > > I don't think this is as obvious as you might think it is. We can happily > > drop the "major version equals bitcode compatibility" implicit promise > if we > > want, but it's been there for a while and will need some messaging as to >

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: > My 2 cents. > And just to be explicit, I 100% support the person doing the heroic work to *make* our releases having the final say in how they are numbered. =]

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

>> The promise just says that 4.0 *will* read 3.X and 4.1 might. > > > Yes, but while you have read it and interpreted it precisely, I suspect that > many people have misinterpreted it and assume that 4.0 will be the last > release to read 3.X. They may be incorrect, but I think it would still be >

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

- Original Message - > From: "Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev" > To: "Rafael Espíndola" , "Eric > Christopher" > Cc: "llvm-dev" , "Chris Lattner" > , "openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)" > , "LLDB" , > "cfe-dev" , "David Blaikie" > , "Paul Robinson" > > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016

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 2016-Jun-28, at 13:17, Richard Smith via lldb-dev > wrote: > >>> I think I agree with Chris with 3.10 being the worst possible outcome. >> >> I'd be interested to understand why you or Chris thing 3.10 is the worst >> possible outcome. > > Personally: I think it would be a bad outcome,

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 1:17 PM, Richard Smith via lldb-dev wrote: >> If 4 seems too confusing, and 40 seems too extreme, how about 10. >> Seriously. It seems exactly as good as any other integer to start counting >> rationally, and won't confuse people by looking like a 4.0 release. > > > I think

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

- Original Message - > From: "Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev" > To: "Richard Smith" > Cc: "llvm-dev" , "Chris Lattner" , > "openmp-dev > (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)" , "LLDB" > , "cfe-dev" > , "David Blaikie" , "Paul > Robinson" > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:38:06 PM > Subject: Re: [ll

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

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Hans Wennborg wrote: > >> I continue to think that 3.10 is the least defensible option out there. We >> have a time based release process with no mechanism or attempt to align >> behind “big” releases that could bring is to a 4.x number. You might as >> well c

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

On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev wrote: > I think I agree with Chris with 3.10 being the worst possible outcome. > > I'd be interested to understand why you or Chris thing 3.10 is the worst > possible outcome. > > Chris has said it is because he thinks we'll never

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

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 4:26 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev > wrote: > > >> On 2016-Jun-28, at 13:17, Richard Smith via lldb-dev >> wrote: >> I think I agree with Chris with 3.10 being the worst possible outcome. >>> >>> I'd be interested to understand why you or Chris thing 3

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

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 4:16 PM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev > wrote: > >>> The promise just says that 4.0 *will* read 3.X and 4.1 might. >> >> >> Yes, but while you have read it and interpreted it precisely, I suspect that >> many people have misinterpreted it and assume that 4.0 will be the

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

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev > wrote: >> >> I think I agree with Chris with 3.10 being the worst possible outcome. > > > I'd be interested to understand why you or Chris thing 3.10 is the worst >

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Git Move: GitHub+modules proposal

On 28 June 2016 at 17:33, Tim Northover wrote: > I really like this too, and think Takumi has basically solved 90% of > the problem for us already. We may want to add an "rN" line to avoid > scaring people with hex commits, but that seems to be all that's > lacking and not really essential anyway.

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Git Move: GitHub+modules proposal

On 28 June 2016 at 16:46, Mehdi Amini wrote: > Why? Assuming we don’t have branches, there was many mention that the id can > be computed from the number of commits in the history. We have branches (release_nm) and we may want them to be in the same sequential numbering. So, I'm assuming this h

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Git Move: GitHub+modules proposal

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:33 PM, Tim Northover via llvm-dev > wrote: > > On 27 June 2016 at 22:55, NAKAMURA Takumi via cfe-dev > wrote: >> It has also submodules. >> https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project-submodule >> >> Both llvm-project(-tree) and (-submodule) have refs/notes/commits.

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

> On 2016-Jun-28, at 16:22, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev > wrote: >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev >> wrote: >>> >>> I think I agree with Chris with 3.10 being the worst possible outcome. >>

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

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 4:38 PM Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: I haven't followed how this worked out for GCC, but I worry that if we > go from 3.9.0 to 4.0 with the intention of doing 5.0 next, users will > get confused when we ship 4.1 as a "dot" release instead of

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

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: > >> On 2016-Jun-28, at 16:22, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev >> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev >> wrote: >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev >>> wrote: