> On Feb 9, 2017, at 5:49 PM, Bob Wilson via swift-dev
> wrote:
>
> Since the feedback on this was all positive, we’re moving ahead with this
> change. It seems like a good time for a status update.
>
> Some changes are already done:
>
> * We test up a test bot to build against the upstream-
Since the feedback on this was all positive, we’re moving ahead with this
change. It seems like a good time for a status update.
Some changes are already done:
* We test up a test bot to build against the upstream-with-swift branches of
LLVM/Clang
(https://ci.swift.org/view/swift-master-next/j
> On Dec 8, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Saleem Abdulrasool via swift-dev
> wrote:
>
> Having been involved in the update process for the next branches, I'm really
> excited to see this type of change.
>
> I think that the "simple" approach is both better to work and collaborate in
> as well as closer
Having been involved in the update process for the next branches, I'm
really excited to see this type of change.
I think that the "simple" approach is both better to work and collaborate
in as well as closer to the llvm development model which makes it easier to
cross pollinate.
The one thing tha
This approach seems good to me. It strikes a good pragmatic balance.
> On Dec 7, 2016, at 7:30 PM, Bob Wilson via swift-dev
> wrote:
>
> I would like to make a change in the way we handle the master-next branch.
>
> Summary: I’d like to switch to a model where we continuously test against the
I would like to make a change in the way we handle the master-next branch.
Summary: I’d like to switch to a model where we continuously test against the
latest upstream LLVM changes. The goal is to simplify the process and make it
easier to collaborate on maintaining master-next.
Background: We
