similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM maintainers, code reviews

On 10 November 2010 07:27, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > I'd like to do more similar ones in the future, and encourage other contributors to also write other blog entries in general. Hi Chris, After discussing these topics in the dev meeting, I also have some input. First, blog posts are great for communicating changes and maybe outlining design decisions, but

On 2010-11-10 12:58, Renato Golin wrote: > In a nutshell, the design decisions should be communicated more > effectively, and a Wiki is a great place to start. Peer reviewers > should communicate via the Wiki, so patchers could learn and plan > before the next iteration and reduce the cost for everybody. You may consider using a review tool rather than (or in addition to)

On Nov 10, 2010, at 3:58 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 10 November 2010 07:27, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> I'd like to do more similar ones in the future, and encourage other contributors to also write other blog entries in general. > > Hi Chris, > > After discussing these topics in the dev meeting, I also have some input. > > First, blog

On 11 November 2010 07:46, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > It's actually not any harder to change and keep up to date than anything else.  HTML pages have the advantage of showing up in a recursive grep of the sourcebase, and showing up in llvm-commits so they fall into the peer review process. Hi Chris, I understand that this is more of a personal preference than a

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2010, at 3:58 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > >> On 10 November 2010 07:27, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >>> I'd like to do more similar ones in the future, and encourage other contributors to also write other blog entries in general. >> >> Hi

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > > From: Manuel Klimek [mailto:klimek at google.com] > > Sent: 26 June 2014 10:40 > > To: Daniel Sanders > > Cc: Alp Toker; Eli Bendersky; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Phabricator and private reviews > > > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:34

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > > As I understand, some people legitimately use Phabricator for internal > > review, ... > > MIPS currently do this for patches that only touch the MIPS backend > (details can be found at > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140602/220385.html). >

On Nov 11, 2010, at 5:08 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 11 November 2010 07:46, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> It's actually not any harder to change and keep up to date than anything else. HTML pages have the advantage of showing up in a recursive grep of the sourcebase, and showing up in llvm-commits so they fall into the peer review process. > > Hi

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 19:32, Hubert Tong via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > There seems to be a split between those who prefer to curate commits >> locally and present them in the PR (i.e. Method 3) as they are to be >> committed (i.e. squash/amend/etc from my workstation and push the result), >> and those who seem to feel that it is better to avoid

Just to clarify: All the LLVM incubator repositories have "enforce linear history" enabled. Neither "Squash and Merge" or "Rebase and Merge" results in a Merge commit in the git history. Steve On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:32 PM Hubert Tong < hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 6:12 PM Renato Golin <rengolin at

On 11 November 2010 18:33, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Right.  My next objection is that the wiki isn't being used just for collaborative development.  For example, the "common backend tasks", "faq", "using llvm" and other stuff should be merged into the official docs.  I'm fine keeping wishlist and external project lists on the

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 8:23 PM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > On 12/2/19 10:05 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 12:52 PM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> > wrote: > >> Mehdi, David, >> >> I think you're both pointing out exceptions rather than the general >> rule. I tried

I just saw this, and I have to say -- thanks, Kristof! Do you know if this is something that could be automated in Phabricator, instead of something that people run on their own? Or is the intent of this to be something that ran regularly (say, weekly or daily) that would email people (or the list) that could be doing the reviews for some of the open patches? On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:01 AM,

Hi, At the last EuroLLVM, I gave a lightning talk about code review statistics on Phabricator reviews and what we could derive from that to try and reduce waiting-for-review bottlenecks. (see https://llvm.org/devmtg/2018-04/talks.html#Lightning_2). One of the items I pointed to is a script we've been using internally for a little while to try and match open Phabricator reviews to people who

I've gone through Code Reviews with Phabriactor[1], Arcanist Quick Start[2] and Arcanist User Guide arc diff[3]. But I'm unable to setup reviewers my editor pops up and there is a "Reviewers:" line and but I'm unable email addresses directly. It seems it wants reviewers passed on the command line or some how in .arcconfig. But I haven't been able to find any

+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:

Meeting date: 05/02/2018 (May 02nd, 2018), 19:30 IST, 14:00 UTC, 10:00 EDT BJ Link * Bridge: https://bluejeans.com/205933580 * Download: <TBD> Attendance * Raghavendra M (Raghavendra Bhat), Kaleb, Atin, Amar, Nithya, Rafi, Shyam Agenda * Commitment (GPLv2 Cure) * Email and Patch * [amarts] 20+ people already have done +1. Will wait another

Hi Shoaib, > You added the old account for Eli (eli.friedman); I went ahead and switched it > to the newer account (efriedma). You can tell it's an old account because if you > go to https://reviews.llvm.org/p/eli.friedman/ (which can be accessed by e.g. > clicking the eli.friedman in your reviewers list), the last activity is from > 2016, whereas

https://reviews.llvm.org/D41659 Implemented missing trigonometric optimization in llvm. Here we have implemented the following missing trigonometric optimizations. 1. tan(x)*cos(x)=sin(x) 2. sin(x)*cos(x) = sin(2*x)/2 3. sin(x)/tan(x)=cos(x); 4. tan(x)/sin(x)=1/cos(x); -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 12:58 AM Ben Hamilton <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