search for: rl12345

...a entries. However, you can still file bugzilla requests manually if for some reason you are unable to use the script. If you file bugs manually, make sure you mark it as a blocker for the release metabug: 32061 and add a link the commit on phabricator in the url field: e.g http://reviews.llvm.org/rL12345 Description for the bug should be in the form of: Merge r123456 into the 4.0 branch : <80 character commit message summary> * Stable Release Improvements * I would like to start an informal discussion about stable release improvements. My goals for this discussion are to find ways to ge...

...milton <benhamilton at google.com> wrote: > Absolutely — I should have mentioned that we would keep the main rL > project and continue to use it. > Your original email said "Moving forward, only LLVM commits will be identified with the prefix rL (as in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL12345) — each project will get its own unique prefix, which might surprise some users or require changes to tools which bake in the rL prefix". That seems to not be an issue, as long as all commits for all projects are still reachable under the rL tag, right? > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 09:23...

...lla requests manually if for some >> reason you are unable to use the script. >> >> If you file bugs manually, make sure you mark it as a blocker for >> the release metabug: 32061 and add a link the commit on phabricator >> in the url field: e.g http://reviews.llvm.org/rL12345 >> >> Description for the bug should be in the form of: >> >> Merge r123456 into the 4.0 branch : <80 character commit message summary> >> >> >> * Stable Release Improvements * >> >> I would like to start an informal discussion about stabl...

+llvm-dev, so we get wider input :) Given how unfortunate reviews that are started without cc'ing the right list are (basically folks need to re-send the review from scratch), I support this idea. Ben, couldn't rL still be available for all projects? (and be the main project for LLVM). On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 5:18 PM Ben Hamilton via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

Hi, I am sending this proposal to get feedbacks on how we could make the tagging of bug fixes and regressions more obvious. The idea is to provide easily accessible information to help deciding what to cherry-pick in a release branch. * Context * People shipping compilers based on LLVM may not completely align with the official releases of LLVM. Thus, the stabilization of each custom release