llvm dev - May 2016 - [RFC] Helping release management

On May 2, 2016, at 5:45 PM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> People shipping compilers based on LLVM may not completely align with
the official releases of LLVM. Thus, the stabilization of each custom release
may happen at different period of time. Because of that, release managers have
to come up with their own strategy to decide which commits should be
cherry-picked during the stabilization of their release branch.
> 
> (Unrelated to your proposal, I'm curious how common it is to base
> releases of LLVM-based tools off the upstream release branches vs.
> other revisions.)

We do both.   We strongly prefer to base our releases on llvm.org releases, but
y’all frequently don’t comply with our timetables.   :)


Jim Rowan
jmr at codeaurora.org
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the
Linux Foundation



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160502/1cede19d/attachment.html>

Sony has (almost) always built releases on top of upstream formal releases.  The
timing means we carry a release branch for kind of a long time, which is
inconvenient, but there are some compensating advantages.
We have thought about releasing based on something more current, but we have
some internal processes to rework before we can make that viable.
--paulr

From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Rowan,
Jim via llvm-dev
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 4:17 PM
To: Hans Wennborg
Cc: llvm-dev
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Helping release management


On May 2, 2016, at 5:45 PM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:


People shipping compilers based on LLVM may not completely align with the
official releases of LLVM. Thus, the stabilization of each custom release may
happen at different period of time. Because of that, release managers have to
come up with their own strategy to decide which commits should be cherry-picked
during the stabilization of their release branch.

(Unrelated to your proposal, I'm curious how common it is to base
releases of LLVM-based tools off the upstream release branches vs.
other revisions.)

We do both.   We strongly prefer to base our releases on
llvm.org<http://llvm.org> releases, but y'all frequently don't
comply with our timetables.   :)


Jim Rowan
jmr at codeaurora.org<mailto:jmr at codeaurora.org>
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the
Linux Foundation


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160503/7aeca9ad/attachment-0001.html>

On 3 May 2016 at 15:04, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> We have thought about releasing based on something more current, but we
have
> some internal processes to rework before we can make that viable.
More current you mean ToT or still "the latest stable release"?

cheers,
--renato