similar to: [LLVMdev] 2.7 branch created

On Tuesday 30 March 2010 17:45:16 David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 30 March 2010 16:09:03 Tanya Lattner wrote: > > Please take a look at all release blockers: > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6586 > > 5893 is not release-critical according to Doug. > > 6640 appears to be a test system problem with a patch available (one of the > ones you're working on?)

On Mar 30, 2010, at 4:04 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 30 March 2010 17:45:16 David Greene wrote: >> On Tuesday 30 March 2010 16:09:03 Tanya Lattner wrote: >>> Please take a look at all release blockers: >>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6586 >> >> 5893 is not release-critical according to Doug. >> >> 6640 appears to be a test

All, There has been a huge lack of response to the release. We need people to help fix regressions and to participate in testing the release. Without this support, I see no reason that the release team should spend their time qualifying a release. We need to get all regressions fixed before 2.7 can continue onto pre-release2. Please take a look at all release blockers:

On Tuesday 30 March 2010 16:09:03 Tanya Lattner wrote: > Please take a look at all release blockers: > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6586 5893 is not release-critical according to Doug. 6640 appears to be a test system problem with a patch available (one of the ones you're working on?) Which bugs do you have patches for? I don't want to start looking at something if

Hi David > I think the trouble with branches is the lockdown of the root repository > directory. Surely not (at the server) > git svn init --stdlayout https://<user>@llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm \ >

On 03/07/2011 08:30 PM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hi David > >> I think the trouble with branches is the lockdown of the root repository >> directory. > Surely not (at the server) > >> git svn init --stdlayout https://<user>@llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm \ >>

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:09:03 -0700, Tanya Lattner <xzss at ____.com> wrote: > All, > > There has been a huge lack of response to the release. We need people to > help fix regressions and to participate in testing the release. Without > this support, I see no reason that the release team should spend their time > qualifying a release. > > We need to get all

Hi Tanya, Are we allowed to patch the release branch yet? 50940 should go in. Evan On May 9, 2008, at 9:37 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > LLVMers, > > The 2.3 branch has been created. I will now begin the pre-release > testing and packaging. I will have the pre-release version tarballs > and binaries ready on Monday, May 12th. I will ask you all to begin > testing at that

LLVMers, The 2.3 branch has been created. I will now begin the pre-release testing and packaging. I will have the pre-release version tarballs and binaries ready on Monday, May 12th. I will ask you all to begin testing at that time. If you need to check out the branch before then, here is the proper command (for llvm): svn co https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/branches/release_23

I am definitely in favor of this if it is ok with Tanya. I hope to spend some time in the next few weeks on tracking down miscompiles, and it would be great to get Clang to the "early-but-usable-beta" stage so it makes sense to roll binaries for 2.7. Tanya, I can also do the x86-32-pc-linux release testing if no one else steps up. - Daniel On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Douglas

Hi Tanya, Thanks for creating the branch! What's the procedure for getting a patch into it? There might be one that I need to get in this week... Thanks! -bw On Sep 12, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > LLVMers, > > The LLVM 2.1 release branches have been created! Over the next 2 > days, I will be generating the pre-release tar balls. I will send out > mail once I

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > I am definitely in favor of this if it is ok with Tanya. > > I hope to spend some time in the next few weeks on tracking down > miscompiles, and it would be great to get Clang to the > "early-but-usable-beta" stage so it makes sense to roll binaries for > 2.7. > > Tanya, I can

LLVMers, The LLVM 2.1 release branches have been created! Over the next 2 days, I will be generating the pre-release tar balls. I will send out mail once I am done and then the community pre-release testing will begin. I'll also be sending out detailed instructions and the release schedule. Full svn access is restored. Thanks for your patience! Thanks, Tanya Lattner

Tanya Lattner wrote: > >> 1. I'm still looking for volunteers to test MacOS X and Solaris. >> If you'd like to volunteer, please email the list to let us know. > > > I'll do minimal testing on Sparc. I'm not going to look into any > regressions though since no one has been really watching Sparc since I > graduated and I am sure there are

Oliver Schneider <gmane at assarbad.net> writes: >>> However, we have official git mirrors of most of the projects on >>> llvm.org, would using them instead of svnsync be an option for you? >> >> Well, if the authoritative source code control system for all the >> llvm projects is svn, I'd just as soon use svn as the tool at my end. > The git

NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> writes: > Matthieu, > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Matthieu Moy > <Matthieu.Moy at grenoble-inp.fr> wrote: >> At some point in the past, an anti-git-svn system had been set up on >> llvm.org. Has this been disabled since? I don't manage to do much with >> git-svn: > > Maybe sure. Anton said it is

Matthieu, On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy at grenoble-inp.fr> wrote: > At some point in the past, an anti-git-svn system had been set up on > llvm.org. Has this been disabled since? I don't manage to do much with > git-svn: Maybe sure. Anton said it is disabled to access upper directories with svn. Thus, we (accessing llvm.org remotely) cannot do

> 1. I'm still looking for volunteers to test MacOS X and Solaris. If you'd > like to volunteer, please email the list to let us know. I'll do minimal testing on Sparc. I'm not going to look into any regressions though since no one has been really watching Sparc since I graduated and I am sure there are regressions. > 2. If you maintain a platform other than those

Thank you! It seems like new changes in .rst files are picked up quickly now. -- Alex On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:33 PM Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote: > This should all be fixed now. > > Thanks, > Tanya > > > On Feb 14, 2019, at 9:50 AM, Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote: > > Yes, I am working on it. The sub-projects are still having

Going down now. I'll send mail when its back up. -Tanya On Oct 26, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > Just FYI, I will be upgrading to 1.7.1 (from 1.5.4). > > Thanks, > Tanya > > On Oct 26, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > >> I'll be upgrading the SVN server on llvm.org this Friday from 9pm - whenever I am done. >> >> You will