search for: presubmit

...is to achieve these things set out in the developer policy: http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#incremental-development <http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#incremental-development> By making each of these steps explicit PR’s, they get individual testing (when we have integrated presubmit testing, which we’ll hopefully get to), code reviewers are reviewing each atomic step (and not the result of a bunch of walk), etc. In my opinion, bundling up many small patches into a single large PR subverts a lot of the goals of incremental development. It is better to propose the small patche...

...n.org/dev/peps/pep-0385/ - to use as a model for LLVM's transition. There are a lot of questions which need to be answered: -- Where will the main repository be hosted? -- What branches will be copied over from svn to the main repository? -- What tools will be used to copy the history? -- What presubmit hooks will be needed before the repository can go live? -- Who will manage the set of core committers, and what tools / training will they need? -- Will the project hierarchy look the same as it does now? -- Will there be any subprojects of LLVM that will not be migrating? -- Will the LLVM history...

Have we made any progress on a potential git conversion? AFAIK the only outstanding technical issue is the monotonic revision number question. Personally, I have no nead for them but others have expressed reservation about losing them. Can we have a discussion about that to identify the core tasks currently needing monotnic revision numbers and how they might be accomplished under git?

Hi, I''m looking to create a form that gets submitted using AJAX after an element loses focus. <% remote_form_for :person, @person, :url => { :action => "save" }, :update => ''form'' do |f| %> <label for="person_fname"><span class="req">*</span>Name</label> <div class="form_el"> <%=

...suddenly critical compared to the previous years? Unfortunately, we currently don't have a good way of doing pre-commit > testing on Phabricator AFAICT > I thought we do now? I got a bunch of libcxx failing on my revision a few weeks ago. The LLVM-premerge-test project recently added presubmit on Linux. Windows will hopefully follow soon (in beta right now I believe), and Mac afterward! (Even though mac is lacking on the cloud provider availability) . From the Harbormaster documentation [1]: > > You'll need to write a nontrivial amount of code to get this working > to...

...use as a model for LLVM's > transition. There are a lot of questions which need to be answered: > > -- Where will the main repository be hosted? > -- What branches will be copied over from svn to the main repository? > -- What tools will be used to copy the history? > -- What presubmit hooks will be needed before the repository can go live? > -- Who will manage the set of core committers, and what tools / training > will they need? > -- Will the project hierarchy look the same as it does now? > -- Will there be any subprojects of LLVM that will not be migrating? >...

...ly demonstrate that libc++ indeed requires a wider range of configurations that the existing pre-merge testing instructure cannot satisfy :/ I think libc++abi and libunwind may be in the same boat. These subprojects just have lots of variety. >> The LLVM-premerge-test project recently added presubmit on Linux. >> Windows will hopefully follow soon (in beta right now I believe), and Mac afterward! (Even though mac is lacking on the cloud provider availability) >> >> >> . From the Harbormaster documentation [1]: >> >> You'll need to write a nontrivial...

...fig with the system. > > I'm not expecting anyone else to set these up cause it doesn't make sense. > I need to be empowered to do it myself, and right now I'm not (or I'm > really not looking in the right spot). > > The LLVM-premerge-test project recently added presubmit on Linux. > Windows will hopefully follow soon (in beta right now I believe), and Mac > afterward! (Even though mac is lacking on the cloud provider availability) > > > . From the Harbormaster documentation [1]: >> >> You'll need to write a nontrivial amount of c...

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 4:19 AM Christian Kühnel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Louis, > > I think this is a good idea. We should start with some local experiments > where people are willing to try it and figure out how well that works and > what does not. Why not allow this for "not significant" changes? They are > merged without review

Hi all, Now that we're on GitHub, we can discuss about pull-requests. I'd like to propose to enable pull-request on GitHub, as a first step as an experimental channel alongside the existing methods for contributing to LLVM. This would allow to find workflow issues and address them, and also LLVM contributors in general to start getting familiar with pull-requests without committing to