search for: prs

There is already 10 PRs sent to GitHub repo. But they all are useless, in every PR people are being informed that they should send patches to http://reviews.llvm.org/

...for specifying the bug number. This got me thinking. I believe that any test that is marked XFAIL is a bug, and we can use LIT to enforce that. So I wrote a patch (https://reviews.llvm.org/D25035 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D25035>) to add a feature to LIT which would support mapping XFAILs to PRs, and a flag to turn XFAILS without PRs into failures. My proposal is to add this feature to LIT (after proper code review, and I still need to write tests for it), and then to annotate all our XFAILS with PRs. Once all the PRs are annotated I think we should enable this behavior by default and req...

...,1,6,9,9,10,2,4,8,2,3,0,1,2,3,1,3,4,5,4,4,4,9,5,4,3,11,8,12,3,10,0,7) lambda<- mean(No_of_Frauds) # Chi-Squared Goodness of Fit Test # Ho: The data follow a specified distribution Vs H1: Not Ho # observed frequencies variable.cnts <- table(No_of_Frauds) variable.cnts variable.cnts.prs <- dpois(as.numeric(names(variable.cnts)), lambda) variable.cnts.prs variable.cnts <- c(variable.cnts, 0) variable.cnts variable.cnts.prs <- c(variable.cnts.prs, 1-sum(variable.cnts.prs)) variable.cnts.prs tst <- chisq.test(variable.cnts, p=variable.cnts.prs) Tst ###################...

...d the conflict resolution to the same > > PR, it triggers another round of builds and tests. And also potentially > > another review, depending on what permissions you have and how the > project > > ist set up... > > It's not quite that simple though. In general most PRs will need to be > rebased just before merging to maintain linear history. That depends on how frequent merge conflicts are. In my other projects that wasn't really an issue. I rarely had to rebase something manually. > What happens > then? Would things need to pass another build b...

...views and pull requests, etc. I'm not suggesting that we do anything in terms of global LLVM policy. However, as a maintainer of libc++, I commit __a lot__ of other people's code for them. It would be a huge time saver for me if I could nicely suggest to contributors (not force them) to use PRs instead of Phabricator for their contributions. It would also handle commit attribution properly, which is a pain right now. Would it be possible to allow GitHub PRs to be submitted on the monorepo so as to let individual sub-projects deal with it however they please? I've spoken to numerous p...

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of > Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 10:40 AM > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Require PRs for XFAILing tests > > On 10/3/2016 12:21 PM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev wrote: > > As David Blaikie mentioned, our bug hygiene is not really that good. > > Adding a process to create more PRs is not going to change that. Of course not. The point of my remark is that linking...

> > In Github pull requests there is always a git commit that you can just >> feed to the build server. And you can be sure of what really gets merged. >> You review, build and test exactly the change that gets merged afterwards. >> > > How would that be true? Given that upstream keep changing during the > period of review? The commit is going to have to be rebased

> -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Bradbury [mailto:asb at asbradbury.org] > Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2016 1:06 PM > To: Robinson, Paul > Cc: Renato Golin; Chris Bieneman; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Require PRs for XFAILing tests > > On 28 September 2016 at 19:58, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 28 September 2016 at 10:08, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev > > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> I cannot think of any situat...

...suggest I stay with what I'm using now, which doesn't have the problems > you wrote about in the Mailing List or the Bugzilla report? CentOS still seems to be at 2.0.2-16. My locally-built evolution is working well for me. Current related packages in my local repo are: -rw-r--r-- 1 prs users 2698766 Jun 21 13:30 evolution-devel-2.0.4-4.x86_64.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 prs users 14879928 Jun 21 13:30 evolution-2.0.4-4.x86_64.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 prs users 2718658 Jun 21 13:14 evolution-data-server-1.0.4-3.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 prs users 219269 Jun 21 11:26 evolution-data-server-devel-1....

...m not >> suggesting that we do anything in terms of global LLVM policy. >> However, as a maintainer of libc++, I commit __a lot__ of other >> people's code for them. It would be a huge time saver for me if I >> could nicely suggest to contributors (not force them) to use PRs >> instead of Phabricator for their contributions. It would also handle >> commit attribution properly, which is a pain right now. > > Don't take this as me telling you it is "actually simple". I am > interested what about the contribution is problematic? If the...

...ds, including but not limited to turning on > server-side hooks for us. > https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1086470665832607746 > > Server-side hooks are *the *answer to this problem. There is no problem. > You just use a server-side hook. > > (Whether or not to use GitHub PRs is an orthogonal question. You can use > hooks with PRs, or hooks without PRs; PRs with hooks, or PRs without hooks.) > > –Arthur > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190320/932502cd/...

On 03/20/2019 10:41 AM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:00 PM Tom Stellard via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > Hi, > > I would like to follow up on the previous thread[1], where there was a consensus > to disallow merge commits in the llvm github repository, and start a

This may be an unpopular opinion (and I don’t have the full context on those specific issues), but I believe that these are an abuse of XFAIL, and should probably be written in terms of REQUIRES instead of XFAIL. I believe XFAIL tests actually execute, and are just marked as expected failure. If a test is not expected to ever succeed, we shouldn’t bother running it, which is what the REQUIRES

...t; suggesting that we do anything in terms of global LLVM policy. >>> However, as a maintainer of libc++, I commit __a lot__ of other >>> people's code for them. It would be a huge time saver for me if I >>> could nicely suggest to contributors (not force them) to use PRs >>> instead of Phabricator for their contributions. It would also handle >>> commit attribution properly, which is a pain right now. >> >> Don't take this as me telling you it is "actually simple". I am >> interested what about the contribution is...

Now that we're on GitHub, can we *please* move to GitHub PRs? As much as I hate git, I hate Phabricator/Archanist even more. They're super clunky and makes working in git that much worse. -bw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200107/e47b7e36/attachme...

...for how common that is, although I'm sure it does happen. I think the overhead is worth the added value, but then I'm a process kind of guy. On 28 September 2016 at 10:28, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > We already have an unwritten rule to create PRs for XFAILs, and we > normally don't XFAIL lightly (I don't, at least). But creating one PR > for every existing XFAIL may end up as a long list of never looked > PRs. :) As opposed to the other ~9000 open PRs? At least they would be tracked. --paulr

...vendor ftp://ftp.areca.com.tw/RaidCards/AP_Drivers/Linux/DRIVER/CentOS/CentOS-5.0/1.20.0X.13/arcmsr.redhat.1.20.0x.13.zip in the spec, but instead cheated and created a .tgz archive from it to stay closer to the r1000 spec file's approach: $ tar ztvf arcmsr.redhat.1.20.0x.13.tgz drwxrwxr-x prs/prs 0 2006-12-22 17:52:50 arcmsr.redhat.1.20.0x.13/ drwxrwxr-x prs/prs 0 2006-12-22 17:52:50 arcmsr.redhat.1.20.0x.13/arcmsr/ -rw-rw-r-- prs/prs 96956 2006-11-08 16:59:50 arcmsr.redhat.1.20.0x.13/arcmsr/arcmsr.c -rw-rw-r-- prs/prs 377113 2006-11-08 16:59:00 arcmsr.red...

Hi All, Some time ago I emailed this list and mentioned (as well as a couple of techinical queries) that I was trying to contact the PRS for information on the copyright licencing requirements of a non-profit on-line radio station, a few people expressed interest in this and asked I keep them updated. Well I just sent my third email (transcript below) informing them that I will assume a further lack of response as permission from th...

Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay tuned for updates! On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :) > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <klimek...

...8:55 Hubert Tong, <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of >> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay >> tuned for updates! >> > I am not aware that the previous long thread about usage of GitHub PRs in > place of Phabricator reviews got anywhere near the point where the option > of Phabricator reviews was being dropped. The original...