Hi All, It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have plenty of goodies for a very solid release. Do people find releases useful, or should we just continue to run out of CVS? Does anyone have any thoughts? -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/
As I'm not particularly active with LLVM right now, it doesn't make any difference to me, personally. However, I am a strong advocate for "release early, release often". We had previously agreed to releases 4 times per year. This will be the 3rd and final one this year. Many users of LLVM only work from release to release so it is unfair to them to let them stray very far from the CVS "head" simply for lack of releases. I think the improvements made to the code base over the last few months have been VERY significant, especially on the backend. I think the current work on the new backend architecture should find a logical stopping point and then the release put out after sufficient testing. My $0.02 worth. Reid. Chris Lattner wrote:> > Hi All, > > It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have plenty > of goodies for a very solid release. Do people find releases useful, or > should we just continue to run out of CVS? Does anyone have any thoughts? > > -Chris >
Hi, We definately need regular releases because that is what distribution package managers focus on. We need to be able to say "use LLVM 1.6 or later". Some linux distros as well as Fink (OSX) currently 'have LLVM 1.5 and I assume they will upgrade when a new release is available. Plus I think it is a good for any development team to have these regular deadlines. From my own projects I know there are a million things that are not as much fun as hacking on new stuff and therefor only get done when releases are eminent. Most of the time my mind forces these things to the background until they can no longer be ignored. regards, Eric On Tuesday 11 October 2005 07:44, Chris Lattner wrote:> Hi All, > > It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have plenty > of goodies for a very solid release. Do people find releases useful, or > should we just continue to run out of CVS? Does anyone have any thoughts? > > -Chris
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 00:44 -0500, Chris Lattner wrote:> It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have plenty > of goodies for a very solid release. Do people find releases useful, or > should we just continue to run out of CVS? Does anyone have any thoughts?I think a release is due. All the work on the backends since last release is worth a release in and of itself. Also, for those who use this in classes, having a release before the start of spring semester or winter quarter would be nice. For users who use cvs, having releases of the cfe is still probably very handy. -- Andrew Lenharth <alenhar2 at cs.uiuc.edu> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20051011/8acde617/attachment.sig>
Frequently releasing software can be a good thing. Especially when it gets to a point where you have a stable CVS version and many new features/bug fixes. -bw On 10/11/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:> > Hi All, > > It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have plenty > of goodies for a very solid release. Do people find releases useful, or > should we just continue to run out of CVS? Does anyone have any thoughts? > > -Chris > > -- > http://nondot.org/sabre/ > http://llvm.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >
The automated tests seems not run periodically. Some builds are even broken (http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/testresults/X86-niobe/), and some failed (http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/testresults/SparcV9/). Will there be another automated test be scheduled before the next release? On 11/10/05, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote:> Frequently releasing software can be a good thing. Especially when it > gets to a point where you have a stable CVS version and many new > features/bug fixes. >-- Tzu-Chien Chiu - XGI Technology, Inc. URL: http://www.csie.nctu.edu.tw/~jwchiu/
I agree with all the reasons others have cited for continuing to have regular releases: it's a catalyst for many things including getting users to update their code, distribution mangers to update distros, getting "nearly-done" pieces wrapped up, and lurking problems identified and fixed. In addition, it's a good excuse to spam a few lists with the announcement. --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ On Oct 11, 2005, at 12:44 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:> > Hi All, > > It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have > plenty of goodies for a very solid release. Do people find > releases useful, or should we just continue to run out of CVS? > Does anyone have any thoughts? > > -Chris > > -- > http://nondot.org/sabre/ > http://llvm.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >
Spamming lists is probably the best reason to keep releases going. It's a great way to find new users :) By the way, are any distributions currently carrying LLVM? I couldn't find it in the Debian repositories. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Vikram S. Adve Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:36 AM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Next LLVM release thoughts? I agree with all the reasons others have cited for continuing to have regular releases: it's a catalyst for many things including getting users to update their code, distribution mangers to update distros, getting "nearly-done" pieces wrapped up, and lurking problems identified and fixed. In addition, it's a good excuse to spam a few lists with the announcement. --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ On Oct 11, 2005, at 12:44 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:> > Hi All, > > It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have > plenty of goodies for a very solid release. Do people find > releases useful, or should we just continue to run out of CVS? > Does anyone have any thoughts? > > -Chris > > -- > http://nondot.org/sabre/ > http://llvm.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >_______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Hello Chris, Chris Lattner wrote on 11/10/2005 at 6:44 p.m.:> It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have > plenty of goodies for a very solid release. Do people find releases > useful, or should we just continue to run out of CVS? Does anyone > have any thoughts?Yeah, I think so :) Also, it would be really nice if an official cygwin build (the binary) was published too. I spent quite a bit of time screwing with it a few months ago, and it was quite a bastard to get going... IMHO, it would be the easiest way to get some windows user playing with llvm :) Best regards, Oleg.
> Also, it would be really nice if an official > cygwin build (the binary) was published too. I spent quite a bit of > time screwing with it a few months ago, and it was quite a bastard to > get going...I had quite a time with it too, could only get the debug version to build as there seemed to be an internal problem with ld. I would very interested in how you got it running and what GCC tool versions you used ?> IMHO, it would be the easiest way to get some windows user playing > with llvm :)Yes, but it is still limited. Aaron
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Reid Spencer wrote:> As I'm not particularly active with LLVM right now, it doesn't make any > difference to me, personally. However, I am a strong advocate for "release > early, release often". We had previously agreed to releases 4 times per > year. This will be the 3rd and final one this year. Many users of LLVM only > work from release to release so it is unfair to them to let them stray very > far from the CVS "head" simply for lack of releases.Makes sense. Somehow I expected this response from everyone :)> I think the improvements made to the code base over the last few months have > been VERY significant, especially on the backend. I think the current work > on the new backend architecture should find a logical stopping point and then > the release put out after sufficient testing.Absolutely. How does this tentative plan sound: we have two more weeks of development, then start the release processing part on about Oct 31 (spooky!). If have some plans for things that I will do to wrap up some features in the code generator. It would be great if the cygwin people can figure out what needs to be done to make cygwin work as well as possible for the release (and when the actual release happens, making a binary cygwin distro would be great!). If someone wants to help start whipping documentation (updating them as needed) and release notes (finding the bugs fixed and major features in the release) into shape, it would be a great help for me, otherwise I'll dive in next week. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/