search for: llvmrm

...ble. At first I think maybe we can upload a new release tarball not replacing it, sorry I didn't say it in the previous mail. IMHO, if you have to do something new after the post-release, make a "dot" release would be better. Perhaps you can write down this experience to benifit other LLVMRM in the future. :-) Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taiwan (R.O.C.) Tel:886-2-2788-3799 #1667 Homepage: http://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~chenwj

...ns of the tarball are available from the the SVN. I do not see a technical reason of not being able to pull one or the other. At this point reverting the commit might cause even more "harm" then good so perhaps we should consult this with wider LLVM community. Considering that my role as LLVMRM has effectively ended on Dec 21st I will be happy to "finalize" the release once we reach a consensus. > Thank you again for your hard work here, > > Tanya > Paweł

...I don't > know you from a bar of soap. I don't know what your relationship > is to UIUC. There is NO information that I can see on the llvm.org > web site that says that you are permitted to sign the distribution. > This might be one of the lessons from this debacle that new LLVMRM should somehow be brought into the "web of trust". > What I do know is that the release announcement came out on the > 20th of December and the tarball was replaced on the 12 of January > and there has been nothing sent to the llvm announce list. > > This makes me uneasy....

...rtificates my signature on the tarballs may not guarantee much of a security. But why didn't you get involved in the 3.2 release? We could have resolved all this in the 2 months since the 3.2 release got rolling. Everybody knew about the changes for the 3.2 release, simple e-mail to the new LLVMRM would go a long way to resolve any security or other release related issues not to mention a bit of a courtesy. I am doing this as service to the LLVM community but frankly I'd rather be chasing my dragons of probability now. Paweł

Pawel, First, all your help with the 3.2 release is greatly appreciated. I do not think anyone is saying otherwise. I apologize for the lack of documentation regarding this issue. I do ask that you consult with previous release manager (myself or Bill) to determine what the best course of action is. There is a lot of room to improve our release process, but its a collaborative effort. You are

...may not guarantee much of a > security. > > But why didn't you get involved in the 3.2 release? > > We could have resolved all this in the 2 months since > the 3.2 release got rolling. Everybody knew about the > changes for the 3.2 release, simple e-mail to the new > LLVMRM would go a long way to resolve any security or > other release related issues not to mention a bit > of a courtesy. I don't understand how my lack of involvement with this release has anything to do with your decision to fix what appears to me to be a non-problem in the release tarball w...

...t;> security. >> >> But why didn't you get involved in the 3.2 release? >> >> We could have resolved all this in the 2 months since >> the 3.2 release got rolling. Everybody knew about the >> changes for the 3.2 release, simple e-mail to the new >> LLVMRM would go a long way to resolve any security or >> other release related issues not to mention a bit >> of a courtesy. > > I don't understand how my lack of involvement with this release has > anything to do with your decision to fix what appears to me to be > a non-prob...

...>> But why didn't you get involved in the 3.2 release? > >> > >> We could have resolved all this in the 2 months since > >> the 3.2 release got rolling. Everybody knew about the > >> changes for the 3.2 release, simple e-mail to the new > >> LLVMRM would go a long way to resolve any security or > >> other release related issues not to mention a bit > >> of a courtesy. > > > > I don't understand how my lack of involvement with this release has > > anything to do with your decision to fix what appears to...

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> > >> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski > >> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer