similar to: [LLVMdev] 1 Week Before 2.0 Branch Creation

Hi Chris, > I think that this is a great idea. However, instead of picking up yet > another setting of testing infrastructure, I think we should make what > we have already (the nightly testers) better. In particular, the main > page of the tester: > http://llvm.org/nightlytest/ > > Already captures a lot of this: it tells you the number of unexpected > failures,

On Sat, 5 May 2007, David Greene wrote: > There's the llvm-testresults list, but I find it less than fully useful > because it's not immediately obvious from scanning message subjects if > there's been a test failure. It's a lot of messages to wade through and > read to get this information. Right. > What about a Tinderbox-like setup where we could consult a web

I don't know if others would be interested as well, but I should be able to set it up at least on one of my machines over the summer, and on a continuing basis if its found useful. Should be at least useful to me with the work I'll be doing on LLVM over the summer. (NB: a speedy x86-64 linux box currently) -Chandler On 5/6/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > >

I'd definitely be interested in seeing this happen. If you get it working, I might be able to contribute a build slave as well. --Owen On May 6, 2007, at 10:35 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > I don't know if others would be interested as well, but I should be > able to set it up at least on one of my machines over the summer, > and on a continuing basis if its found

Aaron Gray wrote: > It would be good to have a mailing list for test results where 'make check' > results could be posted so that there is some reference and people could > avoid repeating builds. There's the llvm-testresults list, but I find it less than fully useful because it's not immediately obvious from scanning message subjects if there's been a test

On Sun, 6 May 2007, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Are you aware of buildbot? It's quite widely used and flexible. > http://buildbot.sourceforge.net/ > I'd suggest at least one machine given over to always building whenever > anything changes, and have the other nightly volunteers as now. Using > just nightly volunteers isn't great because breakage is noticed too late >

> Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > >> How large of a change have you made? With 3 days before the branch >> creation, I strongly advise people not to be checking in major changes. > > Depends how you look at it. Structurally, it separates two files into > four and moves some functionality from one class to a new class, so in a > sense that's a big change.

Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > I'm asking that all platform maintainers and available llvm developers > review the nightly tester results. Please XFAIL any dejagnu tests that are > currently failing, fix any warnings, and review the results of the full > llvm test suite. If a test failure is determined to be something that > needs to be fixed before the release, please fix it or

On Sat, 5 May 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: > It would be good to have a mailing list for test results where 'make check' > results could be posted so that there is some reference and people could > avoid repeating builds. llvm-testresults :) -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

> On Sat, 5 May 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >> It would be good to have a mailing list for test results where 'make >> check' >> results could be posted so that there is some reference and people could >> avoid repeating builds. > > llvm-testresults :) Great, feeling silly, I'll signon to that then :) Aaron

>> On Sat, 5 May 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >>> It would be good to have a mailing list for test results where 'make >>> check' >>> results could be posted so that there is some reference and people could >>> avoid repeating builds. >> >> llvm-testresults :) > > Great, feeling silly, I'll signon to that then :) Shall attach

Aaron Gray wrote: >>> On Sat, 5 May 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >>> >>>> It would be good to have a mailing list for test results where 'make >>>> check' >>>> results could be posted so that there is some reference and people could >>>> avoid repeating builds. >>>> >>> llvm-testresults :)

LLVM Developers, It is now 1 week before I will create the 2.0 release branch. I'm asking that all platform maintainers and available llvm developers review the nightly tester results. Please XFAIL any dejagnu tests that are currently failing, fix any warnings, and review the results of the full llvm test suite. If a test failure is determined to be something that needs to be fixed before

Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > How large of a change have you made? With 3 days before the branch > creation, I strongly advise people not to be checking in major changes. Depends how you look at it. Structurally, it separates two files into four and moves some functionality from one class to a new class, so in a sense that's a big change. Code-logic-wise, it does nothing at all. I will

> It is now 1 week before I will create the 1.9 release branch. When will the front end stablize relative to this? It would help in tracking down failures if the front end was frozen a bit before everything else. Andrew

LLVMers, Sorry for the delay in this email. The 1.8 release has been pushed out 1 week, so today marks 1 week before I create the 1.8 branch. I'm asking that all platform maintainers and available llvm developers review the nightly tester results. Please XFAIL any dejagnu tests that are currently failing, fix any warnings, and review the results of the full llvm test suite. If a test

Hi, Tanya! >* November 6, 2006: Code freeze and release branch created. Documentation > revisions. Does it mean that I can commit my changes to LLVM until November 6? Thanks. Tony. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20061030/1e4ae18f/attachment.html>

LLVMers, It is now 1 week before I will create the 1.9 release branch. I'm asking that all platform maintainers and available llvm developers review the nightly tester results. Please XFAIL any dejagnu tests that are currently failing, fix any warnings, and review the results of the full llvm test suite. If a test failure is determined to be something that needs to be fixed before the

> I very much want to get my regalloc refactoring changes in but I don't > have a consistent platform to test them on. Someone broke llvm-gcc > bootstrapping late last week or this week. How large of a change have you made? With 3 days before the branch creation, I strongly advise people not to be checking in major changes. > Can we please freeze features for a while and get

LLVMers, I will be creating the 2.3 release branch today at 9PM PDT. During that time, commit access to SVN will be forbidden. I will send out mail shortly before the branch creation, and once it has been completed. Thanks, Tanya