similar to: [LLVMdev] 3.2 Release Candidate 1 Sources Available

Akira, > Pawel, > > Is it still not too late to merge these patches? > > r168471 > r168460 > r168458 > r168456 > r168455 > r168453 > r168450 > r168448 > > These patches fix a bug in mips backend's GOT implementation and add > support for big-GOT relocations. That's quite a list of patches! To get them into the 3.2 release you would first

Pawel, Is it still not too late to merge these patches? r168471 r168460 r168458 r168456 r168455 r168453 r168450 r168448 These patches fix a bug in mips backend's GOT implementation and add support for big-GOT relocations. Thank you. On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Just a quick reminder that the November 29th

Hello, Just a quick reminder that the November 29th (10p.m. PST) is the end of Phase 1 testing and Release Candidate 2 (RC2) deadline. After RC2 deadline, LLVM-Clang 3.2 release will be considered feature complete and no new functionality can be added. With 2 days left please use following guidelines when initiating request for patches before RC2 deadline. I will be happy to merge *approved*

On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:35 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Just a quick reminder that the November 29th (10p.m. PST) is the > end of Phase 1 testing and Release Candidate 2 (RC2) deadline. > After RC2 deadline, LLVM-Clang 3.2 release will be considered feature > complete and no new functionality can be added. > > With 2 days left

On Nov 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Pawel Wodnicki <pawel at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > Bill, > >> Hi Pawel, >> >> Could you branch polly as well for the 3.2 release? We will need to contact the 'polly' guys to figure out how best to add it to the release (testing, etc.). > > Sure. > > But I do not know much about polly so 'polly' guys please

Bill, > Hi Pawel, > > Could you branch polly as well for the 3.2 release? We will need to contact the 'polly' guys to figure out how best to add it to the release (testing, etc.). Sure. But I do not know much about polly so 'polly' guys please fill me on the details. For the 3.2 release I will need: - to know how to build it seems to be covered here

We have branched for the 3.2 release! Some "sticky reminders": You can get all of the 3.2 code from the appropriate .../branches/release_32/ You can track state of the 3.2 release through so called "Umbrella bug" : http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13893 Hopefully it will not "rain bugs" on us and we will not need it that much! After branching all patches

I can't find any release_32 branch at http://llvm.org/git/llvm.git or http://llvm.org/git/clang.git. /Patrik Hägglund -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Pawel Wodnicki Sent: den 12 november 2012 07:03 To: llvmdev; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: [LLVMdev] 3.2 Release has branched :T+2 hours We have branched

Anton, > Pawel, > > We all understand that you're pretty new to release process, etc., but > I think you should understand the implications of your actions. > > You just created a lot of harm for really huge pile of users - the > ones who downloads the tarball via some automated build system and > rely on the known good checksum. This includes, but not limited to to

Pawel, First, all your help with the 3.2 release is greatly appreciated. I do not think anyone is saying otherwise. I apologize for the lack of documentation regarding this issue. I do ask that you consult with previous release manager (myself or Bill) to determine what the best course of action is. There is a lot of room to improve our release process, but its a collaborative effort. You are

Pawel, We all understand that you're pretty new to release process, etc., but I think you should understand the implications of your actions. You just created a lot of harm for really huge pile of users - the ones who downloads the tarball via some automated build system and rely on the known good checksum. This includes, but not limited to to the users of FreeBSD, Gentoo, etc. Even worse,

On 1/11/2013 2:51 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > >> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski >>>> <justin.holewinski at

Alright, can you please pull in r169280? On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > On 12/4/2012 10:14 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > What is the procedure for updating the release notes? I've been > committing > > changes to the trunk version, should I be editing them elsewhere? Or > will > > the trunk version be

On Nov 16, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > >>> This approach is fine for casual reader but >>> does not work for scripting or any automated >>> way of dealing with the build. >> Will you please clarify how the automation / scripting helps with the >> patch approval process? > > > Generally release patch

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <pawel at 32bitmicro.com>wrote: > On 11/17/2012 6:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > > On Nov 17, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > > > >> I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I am > not sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think

Hi Pawel, Could you branch polly as well for the 3.2 release? We will need to contact the 'polly' guys to figure out how best to add it to the release (testing, etc.). -bw On Nov 12, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > Tobi, > It appears that a polly 3.2 branch wasn't created last night. Shouldn't there be > one now that polly

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> > >> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski > >> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26

On 12/4/2012 10:14 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > What is the procedure for updating the release notes? I've been committing > changes to the trunk version, should I be editing them elsewhere? Or will > the trunk version be merged in? The exact procedure is not spelled out but I think the easiest would be to merge relevant "ReleaseNotes.html" changes from the trunk,

On 10/21/2012 11:46 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 02:35:49PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:01:37AM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote: >>> On 10/21/2012 10:57 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: >>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:38:48AM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote: >>>>> On 10/21/2012 09:13 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:

On 10/21/2012 10:57 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:38:48AM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote: >> On 10/21/2012 09:13 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 08:38:21AM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote: >>>> On 10/20/2012 05:38 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >>>>> Duncan, >>>>> Is the documentation for using Polly