search for: blameing

This will be a git feature in git 2.23 (in Q3 2019). It will allow git blame to ignore revisions with --ignore-rev, which the user can even specify in their git config. Relevant git blame documentation change: https://github.com/git/git/blob/ae3f36dea16e51041c56ba9ed6b38380c8421816/Documentation/blame-options.txt#L113-L125 Relevant git config documentation change:

As a very frequent explorer of history, I really don't think this is as big an issue as it may seem. Even absent refactorings, you often run into the "wrong" commit when looking at blame (e.g., someone just added a comma rather than actually changing the code you care about), and have to look past that, to another previous commit. Any interactive blame tool ought to have an easy way

Hello all, I broke the build, but I did not receive any blame email about it. I have a feeling the blame emails are not working. Is anyone experiencing the same thing? Could it be related to the last-week master restart (which seems to have reset build numbers as well)? regards, pl

> On Jul 18, 2019, at 6:09 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 18, 2019, at 3:49 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> And one more question: >> >> What is the plan of renaming variables in llvm and clang? Will it be

Hi all, To get wider visibility, build a broader consensus and address concerns on this topic, I'm again raising this as an RFC. This is a proposal to change the rule for variable names from CamelCase to camelBack _really this time_. Background: This has been proposed several times on this mailing list in the past. Most recent one was by Michael Platings in February this year [1], and there

Hi folks, Git is on its way to learning how to ignore commits, allowing us to do variable renaming and other small refactorings without breaking git blame. It's like git-hyper-blame [1] but significantly more powerful as it uses fuzzy matching to match lines, including lines that may have been split or joined. A preview release of Git with this new feature is at:

(Sorry for CC'ing piles of people, but didn't want folks to miss this in the mailing list churn.) See the subject. The problem is in the target-independent code generator and especially in the x86 backend. I would like to fix it. This will be a mechanical change just organizing code in a way that makes it easy and fast to find methods and related static helpers. It will not change any

Hi all! I recently had a problem with a shared excel file which was rsynced from the file- to the backupserver. The backups of this file went wrong and I can't figure out why. The whole rsync and dump to tapes works like charm for a few month now. The situation was as followed. That xls lived (and was backuped) happily for 5 days. Then the users startet to share this file among 4 or 5 people.

Hi Galina, The failing build was http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-mips/builds/10220 and the commit that caused it was 'r251331 [compiler-rt] Fix ptrace interceptor for aarch64'. ________________________________ From: Galina Kistanova [gkistanova at gmail.com] Sent: 02 November 2015 16:03 To: Daniel Sanders Cc: Renato Golin; Bill Seurer; LLVM Dev Subject: Re: [llvm-dev]

I've investigated several failures that my buildbots detected but when I figured out which revisions caused the failures they weren't on any blame lists. Thus the developer has no clue they broke anything until I contact them. It appears this happens when (for instance) one of the test cases in projects/test-suite is updated and causes a failure. Such a revision also won't kick

Hi, I've had this problem on a compiler-rt change too. It was on the clang-cmake-mips builder earlier this week. ________________________________________ From: llvm-dev [llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] on behalf of Renato Golin via llvm-dev [llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org] Sent: 30 October 2015 08:34 To: Bill Seurer Cc: LLVM Dev Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Revisions that cause buildbot problems

Looks like most people in this thread support using LLVM style in LLD. I also had an offline discussion and many people wanted to have one coding style in all LLVM projects. So I'm convinced that we should do that. I'm going to create a patch to rename all variables if no one objects. On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014

hpa, etal, pxelinux works great from a push of the reset button. machine boots normally. However, after i issue 'reboot' command, my box fails to find the tftp server during reboot. This looks to be happening before pxelinux has any chance to participate, so it cannot be to blame. Im seeking corroboration here before I go badgering the bios-provider here's the relevant

It is unfortunate that we are using a different coding scheme for LLD than LLVM, but I'm leaning toward the view that switching to LLVM style will cost too much if it means we are going to lose virtually all commit history. A patch to switch to LLVM style would rename all local and member variables, so it would touch all the lines. Diff is not powerful enough to trace the history beyond

On 9 October 2015 at 19:02, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Where "software" here is presumably the OS software Yes. This is the real noise, one that we cannot accept. > I think that misses the common usage of the term "flaky test" (or do the > tests themselves end up other (1) or (2)?) or flaky tests due to flaky > product code (hash

[just so i don't end up with "why haven't you spoken up"] On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 1:32 AM Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I do not support this. I feel the benefit is low, and the churn cost is high. > > I'm not strongly opposed or anything, I just don't believe this is worthwhile. Same thoughts. > Philip Roman

I think we've hit a record in the number of inline replies, here... :) Let's start fresh... Problem #1: What is flaky? The types of failures of a buildbot: 1. failures because of bad hardware / bad software / bad admin (timeout, disk full, crash, bad RAM) 2. failures because of infrastructure problems (svn, lnt, etc) 3. failures due to previous or external commits unrelated to the

This thread is not active for a while, but I'm still interested in seeing a change. Reading through this thread, looks like we can agree that we want to change the local variable naming scheme so that they start with a lowercase letter. Besides that, there were discussions about lower_case, camelCase, m_ prefix, and each argument seems as convincing as others. I'm not sure what is the

> Look at: > > https://t.co/6fT61xgtGH > > Get the latest microcode.dat file from here: > > https://t.co/zPwagbeJFY > > See how to update the microcode from the links at the bottom of this page: > > https://t.co/EOgclWdHCw > > An before anyone asks .. I have no idea why Red Hat chose this path, > they did. It doesn't matter if I (or anyone else)

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 09:07:32AM -0600, James Szinger wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:44 AM mark <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > > > > The joys of systemd.... > > I'm not sure it's right to blame systemd. Systemd asked nicely for > the service to shutdown. But we can blame systemd for the cryptic message A stop job is running Surely systemd knows