similar to: [LLVMdev] Reminder: LLVM 2.9 Branching in One Week

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Reminder: LLVM 2.9 Branching in One Week"

2011 Feb 28
1
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Reminder: LLVM 2.9 Branching in One Week
Hi Bill, Will the 2.9 branch be reflected in the git mirrors? Thanks, Chad On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > This is a reminder that we will be branching for LLVM 2.9 in one week! > 07:00:00 p.m. Sunday March 6, 2011 PST / 03:00:00 a.m. Monday March 7, 2011 > GMT > What this means for you: > Please keep a watch on all of your
2011 Feb 28
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Reminder: LLVM 2.9 Branching in One Week
Chad Colgur <colgur at gmail.com> writes: > Will the 2.9 branch be reflected in the git mirrors? I really, really hope this is the case. The official git mirror documentation says it is only trunk because the current branching scheme in not suitable for git. I don't understand why that would be but I'm not a git-svn expert. My very short reading of the git-svn manpage makes
2011 Feb 28
5
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Reminder: LLVM 2.9 Branching in One Week
On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:01 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > Chad Colgur <colgur at gmail.com> writes: > >> Will the 2.9 branch be reflected in the git mirrors? > > I really, really hope this is the case. The official git mirror > documentation says it is only trunk because the current branching scheme > in not suitable for git. I don't understand why that would be
2011 Mar 01
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Reminder: LLVM 2.9 Branching in One Week
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
2011 Mar 02
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Reminder: LLVM 2.9 Branching in One Week
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
2011 Feb 28
3
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Reminder: LLVM 2.9 Branching in One Week
> What options were used with git-svn init?  It certainly can support > multiple branch/tag directories: > > init >  --tags=<tags_subdir> >  --branches=<branches_subdir> > >  You can specify more than one --tags and/or --branches options, in >  case your Subversion repository places tags or branches under multiple >  paths. The svn repository is free to
2011 Mar 08
4
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Reminder: LLVM 2.9 Branching in One Week
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 \ >
2011 Feb 28
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Reminder: LLVM 2.9 Branching in One Week
Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> writes: > It doesn't work because git-svn assumes that all of your branches > begin at the same position in the SVN tree, i.e. llvm/branches/*. The > problem is that we have some branches in llvm/branches/*, some in > llvm/branches/Apple/*, some in llvm/branches/ggrief/*, etc. The end > result is that git-svn gets horribly confused.
2011 Feb 28
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Reminder: LLVM 2.9 Branching in One Week
Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> writes: >> What options were used with git-svn init?  It certainly can support >> multiple branch/tag directories: >> >> init >>  --tags=<tags_subdir> >>  --branches=<branches_subdir> >> >>  You can specify more than one --tags and/or --branches options, in >>  case your
2011 Oct 13
5
[LLVMdev] Reminder: LLVM 3.0 Branching Friday!
This is just a reminder to say that we will be branching for the LLVM 3.0 release Friday! 07:00:00 p.m. Friday October 14, 2011 PDT 02:00:00 a.m. Saturday October 15, 2011 GMT Now is the time to look at the buildbots and see what fixes they need: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/console As of this writing, we have: • several test failures on llvm-gcc self-host:
2013 Nov 10
3
[LLVMdev] [Reminder] LLVM 3.4 Release Branching
Good day! This is just a reminder that branching for the 3.4 release will occur at this time: Monday, November 18, 2013 at 7:00:00 PM PST / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 at 3:00:00 AM UTC What this means for you! ------------------------ * Please keep the release notes up to date -- There has been very few commits to them. Please be proactive and update them with any significant feature that was
2011 Oct 14
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Reminder: LLVM 3.0 Branching Friday!
greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) writes: > I have some pending patches for 3.0 only. Of course I meant post-3.0 only. -Dave
2011 Oct 14
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Reminder: LLVM 3.0 Branching Friday!
On Oct 14, 2011, at 12:54 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) writes: > >> I have some pending patches for 3.0 only. > > Of course I meant post-3.0 only. > Yes, I'll send out a message when it's okay to submit post-3.0 patches. -bw
2013 Nov 10
0
[LLVMdev] [Reminder] LLVM 3.4 Release Branching
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 06:11:16AM -0800, Bill Wendling wrote: > Good day! > > This is just a reminder that branching for the 3.4 release will occur at this time: > > Monday, November 18, 2013 at 7:00:00 PM PST / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 at 3:00:00 AM UTC > > What this means for you! > ------------------------ > > * Please keep the release notes up to date --
2013 Nov 11
1
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [Reminder] LLVM 3.4 Release Branching
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu>wrote: > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 06:11:16AM -0800, Bill Wendling wrote: > > Good day! > > > > This is just a reminder that branching for the 3.4 release will occur at > this time: > > > > Monday, November 18, 2013 at 7:00:00 PM PST / Tuesday, November > 19, 2013 at 3:00:00
2013 Nov 11
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [Reminder] LLVM 3.4 Release Branching
Jack, Where do the "-isysroot /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.8.sdk -mmacosx-version-min=10.8" flags come from? I don't see them in your CMake invocation - perhaps they're added via $CC or $CFLAGS? Is this being done on purpose? I can add a CMake step checking whether the current CFLAGS/LDFLAGS allow to build an
2013 Nov 11
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [Reminder] LLVM 3.4 Release Branching
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:59:25PM +0400, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > Jack, > > Where do the "-isysroot > /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.8.sdk > -mmacosx-version-min=10.8" flags come from? I don't see them in your > CMake invocation - perhaps they're added via $CC or $CFLAGS? Is this > being done
2011 Oct 14
0
[LLVMdev] Reminder: LLVM 3.0 Branching Friday!
Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes: > This is just a reminder to say that we will be branching for the LLVM 3.0 release Friday! > > 07:00:00 p.m. Friday October 14, 2011 PDT > 02:00:00 a.m. Saturday October 15, 2011 GMT Hi Bill, I have some pending patches for 3.0 only. Will you be sending out an announcement when the split is finished and such patches can be
2012 Apr 16
0
[LLVMdev] REMINDER: 3.1 Branching Today!
This is just a reminder that we will be branching today at 7PM PDT (2AM GMT). Please pay close attention to the build bots and fix any issues which arise. Share and enjoy! -bw
2013 Nov 17
0
[LLVMdev] [Reminder] Impending Doom^H^H^H^HLLVM 3.4 Branching!
Just a reminder, LLVM 3.4 will be branching tomorrow: Monday, November 18, 2013 at 7:00:00 PM PST / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 at 3:00:00 AM UTC All new features should be near finished. :-) Now, this doesn’t mean that that’s the last time code can be checked into the branch. However, it is the last time code can be checked in without approval by the code owner. Please please please keep on